Ticks on small mammals at two localities in southern Saskatchewan, Canada and the detection of<i>Rickettsia peacockii</i>(Rickettsiaceae) in<i>Dermacentor andersoni</i>(Acari: Ixodidae) nymphs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract SeventeenMyodes gapperi(Vigors) (Rodentia: Cricetidae), 13Peromyscus maniculatus(Wagner) (Rodentia: Cricetidae), 12Microtus pennsylvanicus(Ord) (Rodentia: Cricetidae), fourZapus princepsAllen (Rodentia: Cricetidae), threeIctidomys tridecemlineatus(Mitchill) (Rodentia: Sciuridae), and eight shrews (Soricomorpha: Soricidae) collected at Blackstrap Lake (BL), and 48P. maniculatus, 15Z. princeps,15M. pennsylvanicus, and oneSorex monticolusMerriam (Soricomorpha: Soricidae) collected at Saskatchewan Landing Provincial Park (SLPP), in southern Saskatchewan, Canada were examined for ticks. Although no adult ticks were detected on small mammals at either locality,Dermacentor variabilis(Say) (Acari: Ixodidae) larvae (n=144) and nymphs (n=7) were found on four species of small mammal at BL. At SLPP, bothD. variabilislarvae (n=71) and nymphs (n=6), andDermacentor andersoniStiles (Acari: Ixodidae) nymphs (n=9) were collected from small mammals. Both tick species were present onP. maniculatusandM. pennsylvanicusat SLPP, indicating an overlap in their host range and, hence, the potential for transmission of microorganisms between tick species at sites where they coexist. However, the results of polymerase chain reaction assays used to detect bacteria of the genusRickettsiada Rocha-Lima (Rickettsiaceae) in ticks, revealed thatR. peacockiiNiebylskiet al. only occurred in nymphs ofD. andersoni, whereas noRickettsiawere present in the larvae and nymphs ofD. variabilis.
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 | 0.001 | 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".