MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094523686 · doi:10.1002/ecy.3229

Parasite intensity and the evolution of migratory behavior

2020· article· en· W3094523686 on OpenAlexafffund
Laurinne J. Balstad, Sandra A. Binning, Meggan E. Craft, Marlene Zuk, Allison K. Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueEcology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPopulationIntensity (physics)BiologyEcologyFecundityDemographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Migration can allow individuals to escape parasite infection, which can lead to a lower infection probability (prevalence) in a population and/or fewer parasites per individual (intensity). Because individuals with more parasites often have lower survival and/or fecundity, infection intensity shapes the life-history trade-offs determining when migration is favored as a strategy to escape infection. Yet, most theory relies on susceptible-infected (SI) modeling frameworks, defining individuals as either healthy or infected, ignoring details of infection intensity. Here, we develop a novel modeling approach that captures infection intensity as a spectrum, and ask under what conditions migration evolves as function of how infection intensity changes over time. We show that relative timescales of migration and infection accumulation determine when migration is favored. We also find that population-level heterogeneity in infection intensity can lead to partial migration, where less-infected individuals migrate while more infected individuals remain resident. Our model is one of the first to consider how infection intensity can lead to migration. Our results frame migratory escape in light of infection intensity rather than prevalence, thus demonstrating that decreased infection intensity should be considered a benefit of migration, alongside other typical drivers of migration.

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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.266 · 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

Citations19
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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