MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2512570163 · doi:10.14430/arctic4580

Rapid Nestling Mortality in Arctic Peregrine Falcons due to the Biting Effects of Black Flies

2016· article· en· W2512570163 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Alastair Franke, Vincent Lamarre, Erik Hedlin

Bibliographic record

VenueARCTIC · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaCenter for Northern StudiesUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNunavut Arctic CollegeMitacsArcticNetFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les TechnologiesPeregrine Fund
KeywordsBiologyBroodBitingNest (protein structural motif)ZoologyArcticEcologyOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This note describes nestling mortality in Arctic Peregrine Falcons (Falco peregrinus tundrius) due to the biting effects of blood-feeding black flies (Diptera: Simuliidae). At a nest site near Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, Canada (62˚49′ N, 92˚05′ W), a brood of four nestlings died on 20 July 2013 from the direct effects of severe bites attributed to black flies. Within three hours of the onset of blood-feeding, black flies had caused widespread, uniformly distributed hemorrhagic coalescent lesions over the head and body of all nestlings. Approximately seven hours after the first flies appeared, the female falcon removed the carcasses of the dead nestlings from the nest. Nestlings at eight additional sites also suffered the effects of biting black flies in 2013, resulting in the deaths of 13 of 35 nestlings. A less pronounced outbreak also occurred in 2012 and resulted in the deaths of seven nestlings at four sites. No nestling mortality due to black flies has been documented in any other year from 1982 through 2015. To our knowledge, these observations document the northernmost lethal attack by ornithophilic black flies in North America.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARCTICSame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207