MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2781925499 · doi:10.4039/tce.2017.62

Abundance and stability of populations of chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Amblycera and Ischnocera) infesting two species of woodpeckers (Aves: Piciformes: Picidae)

2018· article· en· W2781925499 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Robert J. Lamb, Terry D. Galloway

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBiologyLouseZoologyPopulationAbundance (ecology)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The annual abundance of chewing lice (Phthiraptera) was recorded from 1996 to 2015 in Manitoba, Canada, on two species of woodpeckers (Piciformes: Picidae). Yellow-bellied sapsuckers ( Sphyrapicus varius (Linnaeus)) were infested with Menacanthus pici (Denny) (Amblycera: Menoponidae) and Penenirmus auritus (Scopoli) (Ischnocera: Philopteridae); northern flickers ( Colaptes auratus (Linnaeus)) were also infested with M. pici , as well as two other Ischnocera, Penenirmus jungens (Kellogg) and Picicola porisma Dalgleish. The mean annual abundance varied from nine to 51 lice per bird for the four species, with prevalence, mean intensity, sex ratio, and nymphs per female also varying among louse species. Menacanthus pici populations on both hosts were unstable: abundance rose over two decades because of increasing prevalence, whereas the abundance of the other three louse species fluctuated around a mean. Population variability was similar for the lice on both hosts, with the metric, PV, ranging from 0.41 to 0.51 on a 0–1 scale, once the effect of the trend in abundance for M . pici had been removed. Although the population dynamics for species of lice on these two woodpeckers were distinct, inter-specific differences in population stability were less pronounced than observed in the few other species of bird lice studied in this way.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.004
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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207