MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2176980669 · doi:10.1603/033.047.0114

Ecological Niche Modeling of Lyme Disease in British Columbia, Canada

2010· article· en· W2176980669 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sunny Mak, Muhammad Morshed, Bonnie Henry

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Entomology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease Control
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionBritish Columbia Centre for Disease ControlPublic Health Agency of CanadaNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEnvironmental niche modellingLyme diseaseEcologyNicheGeographyEcological nicheIxodesTickBorrelia burgdorferiIxodes ricinusBiologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to describe the geographic distribution and model the ecological niche for Borrelia burgdorferi (Johnson, Schmidt, Hyde, Steigerwaldt & Brenner), Ixodes pacificus (Cooley & Kohls), and Ixodes angustus (Neumann), the bacterium and primary tick vectors for Lyme disease, in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We employed a landscape epidemiology approach using geographic information systems mapping and ecological niche modeling (Genetic Algorithm for Rule-set Prediction) to identify geographical areas of disease transmission risk. Forecasted optimal ecological niche areas for B. burgdorferi are focused along the coast of Vancouver Island, the southwestern coast of the BC mainland, and in valley systems of interior BC roughly along and below the N51 degree line of latitude. These findings have been used to increase public and physician awareness of Lyme disease risk, and prioritize future field sampling for ticks in BC.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.085

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.230 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EntomologySame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207