<I>Ixodes scapularis</I> Ticks Collected by Passive Surveillance in Canada: Analysis of Geographic Distribution and Infection with Lyme Borreliosis Agent <I>Borrelia burgdorferi</I>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passive surveillance for the occurrence of the tick Ixodes scapularis Say (1821) and their infection with the Lyme borreliosis spirochaetes Borrelia burgdorferi s.l. has taken place in Canada since early 1990. Ticks have been submitted from members of the public, veterinarians, and medical practitioners to provincial, federal, and university laboratories for identification, and the data have been collated and B. burgdorferi detected at the National Microbiology Laboratory. The locations of collection of 2,319 submitted I. scapularis were mapped, and we investigated potential risk factors for I. scapularis occurrence (in Quebec as a case study) by using regression analysis and spatial statistics. Ticks were submitted from all provinces east of Alberta, most from areas where resident I. scapularis populations are unknown. Most were adult ticks and were collected in spring and autumn. In southern Québec, risk factors for tick occurrence were lower latitude and remote-sensed indices for land cover with woodland. B. burgdorferi infection, identified by conventional and molecular methods, was detected in 12.5% of 1,816 ticks, including 10.1% of the 256 ticks that were collected from humans and tested. Our study suggests that B. burgdorferi-infected I. scapularis can be found over a wide geographic range in Canada, although most may be adventitious ticks carried from endemic areas in the United States and Canada by migrating birds. The risk of Lyme borreliosis in Canada may therefore be mostly low but more geographically widespread than previously suspected.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".