Examination of Parasite Assemblages in Killifish of the Genus Fundulus Across the Atlantic Coast of the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Killifish of the genus Fundulus were examined to assess the factors shaping parasite community structure at a genus level. A database of previous parasite surveys on Fundulus species across the Atlantic coast of the United States and Canada was created from a literature review. The database included parasite and environmental factor data from 15 sources. Additional sites from New Brunswick, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, North Carolina, and South Carolina were sampled for Fundulus species. The resulting database includes data for 10 species from a total of 57 unique geographic sites. Data on the diversity and abundance of metazoan parasites were gathered through laboratory analysis and added to the dataset. Univariate analysis of observed parasite species richness among Fundulus populations in the data set found that latitude (R2 = 0.112, P = 0.011), climate type (R2 = 0.158, P = 0.027), and salinity classification (R2 = 0.223, p = 0.001) were the dominant factors determining parasite species richness. Multivariate analysis found that host species (R= 0.539, P = 0.001) was the most important factor in determining the similarity of parasite assemblages. Within the Fundulus genus, parasite species richness was found to decrease in low latitudes and host phylogeny was not found to be a significant factor in the similarity of parasite communities. Taken together, these results indicate that commonly reported large-scale drivers of parasite community structure, such as latitude and phylogeny, may have diminished significance at the host genus level relative to host ecology and biogeography.
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 | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".