New host and locality records for endoparasitic nasal mites (Acari: Rhinonyssidae, Turbinoptidae, and Ereynetidae) infesting birds in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".