Prevalence of <i>Aeromonas hydrophila</i> in relation to timing and duration of breeding in three species of ranid frogs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
:Species of temperate ranid frogs differ in ways (e.g., habitat preferences, timing and duration of their breeding seasons) that could influence their susceptibility to parasites and pathogens. In this study, we compared the prevalence of Aeromonas hydrophila in breeding adults of bull frogs (Rana catesbeiana), green frogs (R. clamitans), and leopard frogs (R. pipiens) from a region in eastern Ontario. Adult R. pipiens had a higher prevalence of A. hydrophila than either R. clamitans or R. catesbeiana, but there were no differences between sexes. There was also a trend for a decline in prevalence of A. hydrophila over the breeding seasons of all three species. Reduced immune ability soon after emergence from hibernation could explain the higher prevalence of A. hydrophila earlier in the season. The higher prevalence in R. pipiens may be a function of earlier and contracted breeding in this species. The expected high stress during breeding for this species could have implications for its relative susceptibility to other disease agents that share routes of infection with A. hydrophila or that are challenged by the same components of the immune system.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".