MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886691772 · doi:10.7589/2018-02-027

Neospora caninum DNA in Coyote Fecal Samples Collected in an Urban Environment

2018· article· en· W2886691772 on OpenAlexaffabout
Claudia Klein, Shemanti Barua, Stefano Liccioli, Alessandro Massolo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Diseases · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicToxoplasma gondii Research Studies
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeospora caninumOdocoileusCanisBiologyVulpesVeterinary medicineAncylostoma caninumFecesOvisOvis canadensisZoologyDNA extractionNeosporaPolymerase chain reactionEcologyHelminthsToxoplasma gondiiPredationGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Definitive hosts of Neospora caninum are species of canids, such as domestic dogs ( Canis lupus familiaris), coyotes ( Canis latrans) and foxes ( Vulpes vulpes), whereas ruminants, such as cattle ( Bos taurus), sheep ( Ovis aries), and deer (Cervidae) serve as intermediate hosts. We investigated the presence of N. caninum in feces of coyotes in Calgary, Alberta, Canada. One hundred coyote fecal samples were collected from five city parks. Following DNA extraction, the presence of N. caninum DNA was determined by using real-time PCR analysis with a primer and probe pair targeting the Nc5 gene. Ten of the 100 samples contained detectable amounts of N. caninum DNA. White-tailed deer ( Odocoileus virginianus) and mule deer ( Odocoileus hemionus) are common in Calgary's city parks, and although we did not examine them for the presence of N. caninum bradyzoites, the presence of N. caninum DNA in coyote fecal samples is indicative that a sylvatic host of N. caninum exists within this urban environment.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.603

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife DiseasesSame topicToxoplasma gondii Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207