Parasites and Host Performance: Incorporating Infection into Our Understanding of Animal Movement
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SYNOPSIS: Studies of animal locomotion and movement largely assume that individuals are healthy and performing to the best of their abilities in ways which are adapted to their survival. However, wild animals face numerous ecological challenges that can compromise their health, reduce their performance capacity, impair their movement abilities and, ultimately, lower their fitness. By diverting resources and increasing host energetic demands, parasites, bacteria, and viruses (hereafter parasites) can dramatically influence the ways in which their hosts allocate energy to movement. Yet, the role of parasites in influencing animal locomotor performance and movement remains relatively unexplored, perhaps because animals often hide outward signs of sickness, and parasites tend to be small and inconspicuous to researchers. Here, we review how parasite infection can alter host locomotor performance via impacts on host morphology and physiology. We also give examples of behavioral strategies that some hosts employ to help overcome the disadvantages imposed by infection. Finally, we discuss how parasites can lead to both increased and decreased host movement patterns, either as an adaptive strategy for the host or due to manipulation by the parasite. The dynamic interplay between host movement (such as migration and dispersal) and infection has profound consequences for population and ecosystem-level processes that are influenced by movement. Acknowledging the important functional role played by parasites in driving the evolution of host locomotor performance and behavior is a critical step toward developing a comprehensive understanding of the causes and consequences of animal movement.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it