Distribution of <i>Dermacentor andersoni</i> (Acari: Ixodidae) in Grassland Regions of Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The geographic distribution of the Rocky Mountain wood tick, Dermacentor andersoni Stiles, was determined in Alberta, Canada, by drag sampling at 86 and 89 sites during 2011 and 2012, respectively. Tick density and prevalence varied between years, averaging (range) 1.0 (0-26.2) and 5.9 (0-110) ticks/1,000 m2 in 2011 and 2012, respectively. Ticks were detected at 24.4% and 42.7% of the sites sampled in each respective year. Tick density and presence declined in a northerly direction to 51.6°N and in a westerly direction to ca. 113°W, except for a small area of high density at the edge of the Rocky Mountains in the southeastern portion of the province. Ticks were most abundant in the Dry Mixedgrass and Montane natural subregions and in areas with Brown Chernozemic, Regosol, and Solodized Solonetzic great soil groups. A logistic regression model indicated that tick presence was increased in the Dry Mixedgrass natural subregion and in regions with greater temperatures during the previous summer and normal winter precipitation but was reduced in areas with Dark Brown Chernozemic soils. The model will be useful for predicting tick presence and the associated risk of tick-borne diseases in the province.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".