Variation in the intensity and prevalence of macroparasites in migratory caribou: a quasi-circumpolar study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Comparative studies across time and geographical regions are useful to improve our understanding of the health of wildlife populations. Our goal was to study parasitism in migratory caribou (Rangifer tarandus (L., 1758)) of North America and Greenland. A total of 1507 caribou were sampled across 12 herds to assess seven of their main helminth and arthropod macroparasites between 1978 and 2010. We sought to determine which factors such as sex, age class, herd size, and season best explained the prevalence and intensity of those parasites. Intensity of warble fly (Hypoderma tarandi (L., 1758)) larvae increased with age for males, whereas the opposite was observed in females. Prevalence of giant liver flukes (Fascioloides magna (Bassi, 1875) Ward, 1917), tapeworm Taenia hydatigena Pallas, 1766, and nose bot fly (Cephenemyia trompe (Modeer, 1786)) larvae was higher in adults than in calves. Prevalence of F. magna and T. hydatigena was higher at high herd size than at lower herd size. Greenland herds had the lowest prevalence of T. hydatigena and of the tapeworm Taenia krabbei Moniez, 1879, a higher intensity of H. tarandi, and a higher prevalence of C. trompe than the other herds. Of the herds from Quebec and Labrador, the Rivière-George herd had a higher prevalence of F. magna than the Rivière-aux-Feuilles herd. Our research provides the first comparative survey of these parasites of caribou across a broad spatial–temporal range.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".