Passive and Active Surveillance for Ixodes scapularis (Acari: Ixodidae) in Saskatchewan, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Passive and active surveillance for the blacklegged tick, Ixodes scapularis Say, in the Canadian province of Saskatchewan was conducted over a 9-yr period (2009-2017). More than 26,000 ixodid ticks, representing 10 species, were submitted through passive surveillance. Most (97%) of these were the American dog tick, Dermacentor variabilis (Say). Of the 65 I. scapularis adults submitted, 75% were collected from dogs. Infection rates of Borrelia burgdorferi, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, and Babesia microti in I. scapularis were 12%, 8%, and 0%, respectively. Although the I. scapularis submitted by passive surveillance were collected from five of seven ecoregions in central and southern Saskatchewan, they were most frequent in the Moist Mixed Grassland and Aspen Parklands. In contrast, no I. scapularis were collected from the extensive field sampling conducted at multiple sites in different ecoregions across the province. Hence, there is no evidence of I. scapularis having established a breeding population in Saskatchewan. Nonetheless, continued surveillance for blacklegged ticks is warranted given their important role as a vector of medically and veterinary important pathogens, and because they have recently become established across much of the southern portions of the neighboring province of Manitoba.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".