RECRUITMENT OF WINTER TICKS (DERMACENTOR ALBIPICTUS) IN CONTRASTING FOREST HABITATS, ONTARIO, CANADA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recruitment of winter tick larvae (Dermacentor albipictus) was studied in a forest opening and a closed canopy deciduous forest to evaluate their potential as sources of tick infestation to moose (Alces alces). Engorged female ticks were set out in early May at each site and monitored to measure the proportions of females producing larvae and the number of larvae recruited per g of surviving female. Recruitment was higher in the forest during the hotter, drier summer of 1983, primarily due to fewer engorged females producing larvae in the opening, and was much higher (>2 x) in the opening during the cooler, damper summer of 1984. Recruitment in the field was 20–40% of that under laboratory conditions. Desiccation of eggs and/or larvae was the probable cause for the annual variation in recruitment in the opening. Most larvae were recruited earlier in the opening than in the forest site. Neither weight nor date of detachment of engorged female ticks influenced when larvae first ascended vegetation. Weather, especially temperature, and site structure and composition affect abundance of the free-living stages of the winter tick and larvae available for transmission to moose. Open sites should support more winter tick larvae than densely forested sites except in years of particularly hot and dry weather.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".