CAN HELMINTH COMMUNITY PATTERNS BE AMPLIFIED WHEN TRANSFERRED BY PREDATION FROM INTERMEDIATE TO DEFINITIVE HOSTS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Helminth communities in definitive hosts are formed by the acquisition of packets of larvae arriving each time an intermediate host is consumed. It is thus possible that associations between parasite species or other aspects of community structure get transferred from intermediate to definitive hosts. Earlier computer simulations showed that associations between 2 parasite species, in particular positive associations, could be transferred up the food chain. Here, we alter some of the assumptions of previous models and generate new simulations of several ways in which source infracommunities in intermediate hosts can be transferred to target infracommunities in definitive hosts. In particular, we introduced nonrandom selection of intermediate hosts by predatory definitive hosts, to mimic the phenomenon of host manipulation by parasites; this consisted in biasing predation toward intermediate hosts harboring a certain parasite species. Overall, our results show that positive covariances between 2 parasite species can not only be transferred but can also be amplified during transmission to definitive hosts; significant covariance between parasite species can even appear in the definitive hosts when none existed in the intermediate hosts. Negative covariance was not as readily transferred to definitive hosts and amplified, in part because of properties of the presence-absence covariance index. Amplification of covariance results from intermediate host manipulation as well as from other processes taking place during transmission. These results suggest that the patterns of association between helminth species in definitive hosts cannot be taken to reflect the processes acting inside those hosts: they may simply be inherited, with amplification, from intermediate hosts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".