A Critical Review of All Known Published Records for Water Mite (Acari: Hydrachnidiae) and Mosquito (Diptera: Culicidae) Parasitic Associations From 1975 to Present: Table 1.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All published records of water mite-mosquito parasitic associations since Gary R. Mullen's comprehensive review in the 1970s of the literature were critiqued to provide an up-to-date account on the identity of water mites parasitizing mosquitoes and their geographic distribution. In total, 321 records in 62 sources were identified, with each record representing an association specific to a state, province, or region within a country. The greatest number of records were from the United States (120), followed by India (106) and Canada (40). In all, 105 species of mosquitoes were parasitized, with the majority belonging to the genera Aedes sensu lato (30), Anopheles (30), and Culex (21). Records were biased toward mosquito genera with the greatest number of freshwater species and medical importance. Most water mites belonged to the genus Arrenurus, or were Parathyas barbigera (Viets 1908). Arrenurus water mites were often not identified to species, but 15 different Arrenurus species were determined in 119 records. All but one of the species (i.e., Arrenurus madaraszi Daday 1898) were only reported from Canada, Germany, or the United States. Although a greater proportion of sources reviewed by us compared with Mullen's review identified water mites down to the level of genus, to better understand the biological significance of mite and mosquito interactions, more of an effort is needed to identify the species of water mites. The availability of molecular techniques such as DNA barcoding will make this goal more attainable.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".