Studies on the resting behaviour and host choice of <i>Anopheles gambiae</i> and <i>An. arabiensis</i> from Muleba, Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative efficacy of a mechanical (Prokopack) collection method vs. manual aspiration in the collection of resting mosquitoes was evaluated in northern Tanzania before and after an intervention using indoor residual spraying and longlasting insecticide-treated nets. In smoke-free houses mosquitoes were collected from the roof and walls, but in smoky houses mosquitoes were found predominantly on the walls. Anopheles gambiae (Diptera: Culicidae) constituted 97.7% of the 312 An. gambiae complex specimens identified before but only 19.3% of the 183 identified after the intervention. A single sampling with the Prokopack collected a third of the available insects. Anopheles gambiae completed its gonotrophic development indoors, whereas Anopheles arabiensis did so outdoors. In both species gonotrophic development took 2 days. Most unfed resting An. arabiensis collected outdoors were virgins, whereas the majority of engorged insects were parous (with well-contracted sacs). Daily survival was estimated to be 80.0%. Only 9.4% of the engorged An. arabiensis collected outdoors and 47.1% of those collected indoors had fed on humans. Using the Prokopack sampler is more efficient than manual methods for the collection of resting mosquitoes. Malaria transmission may have been affected by a change in vector composition resulting from a change in feeding, rather than reduced survival. Monitoring the proportions of members of the An. gambiae complex may provide signals of an impending breakdown in control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".