Richness and Diversity of Phlebotomine Sand Flies (Diptera: Psychodidae) in North Khorasan Province, Northeast of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the species composition, richness and diversity indices of the Phlebotomine sand flies at different topographic condition in visceral (VL) and cutaneous leishmaniasis (CL) foci in the northeast of Iran. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted during 2016 in North Khorasan Province. The sampling was focused on rural regions, where human cases of VL and/or CL were diagnosed and reported during last 5 years. Sand flies were collected three times each twenty days during peak periods of seasonal activity. Seven collection methods were used. Some Alpha and Beta diversity indices were calculated. RESULTS: were the most prevalent (84.9%) species in the study area. Species richness (S) was very different in three areas and were18, 8, and 4 respectively but Evenness (E) were 0.357, 0.345, and 0.380, so evenness was almost equal in the study areas. Shannon Index (H) and Margalef Richness Index were calculated 1.033, 0.718, 0.527 and 2.117, 0.8998, 0.4006 respectively. CONCLUSION: The sand fly fauna in North Khorasan Province was very rich and often included some of the most important proven or suspected vectors of leishmaniasis. Species diversity indices (Shannon index, and Simpson's index) were not high due to decreasing in evenness. The Margalef richness index could accurately reflect the biodiversity of sand flies between three subtidal locations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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".