MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911990588 · doi:10.11646/zootaxa.1548.1.2

A taxonomic revision of the Paranoplocephala primordialis (Douthitt) complex (Cestoda: Anoplocephalidae) in voles and squirrels

2007· article· en· W2911990588 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Voitto Haukisalmi, Heikki Henttonen

Bibliographic record

VenueZootaxa · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyMicrotusCestodaRutilusZoologyHost (biology)Nearctic ecozoneEcologyTaxonomy (biology)HelminthsFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study redescribes Paranoplocephala primordialis (Douthitt) in the red squirrel, Tamiasciurus hudsonicus, describes two new, related species of Paranoplocephala Lühe from Microtus and Myodes (syn. Clethrionomys) voles, and summarizes the patterns of their host specificity and geographic distribution, particularly in Alaska and adjacent regions in Canada and north-eastern Siberia. Paranoplocephala nearctica n. sp. and Paranoplocephala alaskensis n. sp. are shown to be slightly, but consistently differentiated host-specific parasites of Myodes rutilus and Myodes gapperi, and Microtus miurus, respectively. The related Paranoplocephala sp. from Microtus oeconomus is also suspected to be specifically distinct, but the available material does not allow a description of a new species.Paranoplocephala primordialis-like cestodes occur widely in rodents in North America, ranging from California to Labrador and Alaska, but also in north-eastern Siberia. The specific identity of the few Eurasian specimens could not, however, be confirmed. Paranoplocephala primordialis-like species seem to be rare in all host species and regions, maximum prevalences being 8%, 3%, 6.5% and 5% for P. primordialis, P. nearctica n. sp., P. alaskensis n. sp. and Paranoplocephala sp., respectively.

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 score0.142
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.280 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZootaxaSame topicParasite Biology and Host InteractionsFrench-language works237,207