Assessing the Repeatability of Tick Dragging as a Method for <i>Ixodes scapularis</i> Surveillance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tick dragging is an important tool used by public health for Ixodes scapularis surveillance to identify Lyme disease risk areas in Ontario, Canada. Concerns have been raised on the repeatability of tick dragging due to fluctuations that occur in the tick population in response to micro- and macroclimatic variations. Our objective was to assess the repeatability of tick dragging over a short timescale by examining three outcome measures: presence/absence of ticks, tick abundance, and likelihood of tick establishment based on an indicator developed by Clow et al. ( 2018 ). We conducted tick dragging twice per site within a 1-month period at a total of 15 sites in eastern and southern Ontario. Ixodes scapularis were detected at 11 sites. The outcome of presence/absence was consistent at 13 of 15 sites. Abundance was highly variable, changing between each visit at sites where ticks were detected. The likelihood level was consistent at 13 of 15 sites. Based on the kappa statistic, there was substantial agreement between measurements for the presence/absence and the likelihood levels. Our results indicate that both presence/absence and likelihood levels provide more consistent outcomes for tick dragging than tick abundance alone; however, applying the dragging data to the likelihood indicator provides additional information about the potential risk associated with I. scapularis establishment in the area.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".