MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2533013877 · doi:10.4039/tce.2016.47

New host and locality records for endoparasitic nasal mites (Acari: Rhinonyssidae, Turbinoptidae, and Ereynetidae) infesting birds in Manitoba, Canada

2016· article· en· W2533013877 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wayne Knee, Terry D. Galloway

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAcariHost (biology)BiologyZoologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Four families of parasitic mites (Acari: Rhinonyssidae, Ereynetidae, Cytoditidae, and Turbinoptidae) have evolved independently to live inside the nasal passages of birds. A previous survey of nasal mites in Canada drew attention to the dearth of knowledge about these specialised mites, and indicated there were more species of nasal mites to discover in Canada. Since 2008, we have continued to survey nasal mites and herein present the details from infested hosts, 92 host individuals representing 64 species from 11 orders and 23 families. We report 18 new records for species of nasal mites in Canada: 16 Rhinonyssidae, one Ereynetidae, and one Turbinoptidae. No Cytoditidae have yet been recorded in Canada. We also collected five undescribed species of rhinonyssids. A total of 64 host-parasite species records are reported, and of these records, 52 rhinonyssids, one ereynetid, and three turbinoptids are new for Canada. Nasal mites were not collected from 127 host species, and several of these host species were sampled extensively (⩾50 individuals). This research furthers our understanding of avian nasal mites in Canada and highlights the need for continued investigations on these mites.

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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.668

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207