MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3091899146 · doi:10.1017/s0022149x20000838

Nematodes associated with terrestrial slugs in the Edmonton region of Alberta, Canada

2020· article· en· W3091899146 on OpenAlexaffabout
Taylor Brophy, Rory J. Mc Donnell, Dana K. Howe, Dee R. Denver, Jenna L. Ross, Lien T. Luong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Helminthology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMollusks and Parasites Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyNematodeFacultativeZoologyGenusEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of nematodes associated with terrestrial slugs was conducted in residential gardens, nurseries, greenhouses and agricultural sites located in and around Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. A total of 2406 slugs were collected from 82 sites. Slugs were decapitated and cadavers were incubated for two weeks, with emerging nematodes removed and processed for identification. Nematodes were identified using molecular sequence data for the 18S ribosomal DNA. Nematodes were recovered from 20 of the 82 sites surveyed, with 24.4% of the slugs infected with nematodes. A total of seven nematodes were identified to species level, including Caenorhabditis elegans, Panagrolaimus papillosus, Pellioditis typica, Pelodera pseudoteres, Rhabditella axei, Rhabditoides inermiformis and Phasmarhabditis californica. An additional four specimens were identified to genus level, including Oscheius sp. (9), Pristionchus sp., Rhabditis sp. and Rhabditophanes sp. (1). The two most common nematode species were C. elegans and P. pseudoteres. The facultative parasite, P. californica, was recovered from a single Arion rufus specimen, collected from a seasonal nursery. To our knowledge, this study represents the first survey of slug-associated nematodes in Canada.

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 score0.673
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HelminthologySame topicMollusks and Parasites StudiesFrench-language works237,207