Host body size and the abundance of chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Amblycera, Ischnocera) infesting eight owl species (Aves: Strigiformes) in Manitoba, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Specimens (n = 508) of eight species of owl (Aves: Strigiformes) collected from 1994 to 2017 in Manitoba, Canada, were weighed and examined for chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Amblycera, Ischnocera). The relationship between host body mass and infestation by 12 species of lice was examined. Host body mass explained 52% (P = 0.03) of the variation in mean intensity of louse infestation among hosts, due primarily to a high abundance of lice on the heaviest owl species. The relationship was due to the mean intensity of lice, and neither species richness nor the prevalence of lice was related to host body mass. For individual louse species, the relationship was due primarily to Kurodaia acadicae Price and Beer, Kurodaia magna Emerson, and an undetermined species of Kurodaia Uchida (Phthiraptera: Menoponidae) (R2 = 0.997), but not the nine Strigiphilus Mjöberg (Phthiraptera: Philopteridae) species (R2 = 0.27). Louse intensity did not increase with body size for individual birds of any of the owl species. Mean intensity is expected to increase in proportion with the size, specifically the surface area, of the host. Why that relationship holds only for one louse genus, and not for the most abundant genus of lice on owls, and weakly compared with other families of birds, has yet to be determined.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".