Geospatial Analysis and Seasonal Distribution of West Nile Virus Vectors (Diptera: Culicidae) in Southern Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to establish geospatial and seasonal distributions of West Nile virus vectors in southern Ontario, Canada using historical surveillance data from 2002 to 2014. We set out to produce mosquito abundance prediction surfaces for each of Ontario’s thirteen West Nile virus vectors. We also set out to determine whether elevation and proximity to conservation areas and provincial parks, wetlands, and population centres could be used to improve our model. Our results indicated that the data sets for Anopheles quadrimaculatus, Anopheles punctipennis, Anopheles walkeri, Culex salinarius, Culex tarsalis, Ochlerotatus stimulans, and Ochlerotatus triseriatus were not suitable for geospatial modelling because they are randomly distributed throughout Ontario. Spatial prediction surfaces were created for Aedes japonicus and proximity to wetlands, Aedes vexans and proximity to population centres, Culex pipiens/restuans and proximity to population centres, Ochlerotatus canadensis and elevation, and Ochlerotatus trivittatus and proximity to population centres using kriging. Seasonal distributions are presented for all thirteen species. We have identified both when and where vector species are most abundant in southern Ontario. These data have the potential to contribute to a more efficient and focused larvicide program and West Nile virus awareness campaigns.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".