MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2179637461 · doi:10.1603/0022-2585-37.1.114

Climbing Simulated Vegetation to Heights of Ungulate Hosts by Larvae of <I>Dermacentor albipictus</I> (Acari: Ixodidae)

2000· article· en· W2179637461 on OpenAlexafffund
Michelle McPherson, Allen W. Shostak, William Samuel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Medical Entomology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicStudy of Mite Species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsBiologyIxodidaeAcariUngulateClimbingEcologyLarvaVegetation (pathology)ZoologyHabitat

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Larvae of winter ticks, Dermacentor albipictus (Packard), ascend vegetation in autumn and form clumps that attach to passing ungulate hosts. We tested the hypothesis that vegetation height determines the height of clumps. During the vegetation-to-ungulate transmission period (early September to mid-November), larvae were released at the base of simulated vegetation (nylon rods 245 cm tall) in outdoor and laboratory trials and in the absence of host cues. Rod height exceeded the height of the tallest ungulate host, which is the moose, Alces alces (L.). Most larvae stopped climbing and formed clumps 50-190 cm above ground, which coincided with torso heights of moose; elk, Cervus elaphus L.; and deer, Odocoileus spp. Rafinesque. More clumps formed in outdoor trials than in laboratory trials and clump heights tended to increase over the course of the experiment, but clump number, size, and height did not correlate with weather conditions. Winter tick larvae appear to determine their height above ground in the absence of external cues, but this mechanism may be modified by external conditions.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations24
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Medical EntomologySame topicStudy of Mite SpeciesFrench-language works237,207