MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773664517 · doi:10.1111/mve.12289

Assessing natural infection with Zika virus in the southern house mosquito, <scp> <i>Culex quinquefasciatus</i> </scp> , during 2016 in Puerto Rico

2017· article· en· W2773664517 on OpenAlexafffund
Donald Yee, R. DEJESUS‐CRESPO, Fiona F. Hunter, Fengwei Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueMedical and Veterinary Entomology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsBrock University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention
KeywordsCulex quinquefasciatusBiologyAedes aegyptiZika virusAedesVirologyTransmission (telecommunications)CulexDengue feverFlavivirusWestern hemisphereDengue virusVector (molecular biology)VirusZoologyEcologyLarvaGeographyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The epidemic of Zika in the Western hemisphere has led to intense investigations of all species important in the transmission of Zika virus (ZikV), including putative mosquito vectors. Although evidence points to Stegomyia (= Aedes) (Diptera: Culicidae) mosquitoes as the primary vectors in nature among humans, there remains the possibility that other common mosquito species may be implicated in the rapid spread of the virus. Herein, field-caught Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) collected during June 2016 in different neighbourhoods in San Juan, Puerto Rico were examined for the presence of natural infection with ZikV. Stegomyia aegypti (= Aedes aegypti) from the same locations were also analysed. None of the Cx. quinquefasciatus tested showed natural infection for ZikV, whereas S. aegypti tested positive at seven sites. The present results suggest that Cx. quinquefasciatus was not involved in the transmission of ZikV in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 2016.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.308
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMedical and Veterinary EntomologySame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207