MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186445391 · doi:10.4039/tce.2021.29

Infestation parameters for chewing lice (Phthiraptera: Amblycera, Ischnocera) parasitising true thrushes (Aves: Passeriformes: Turdidae) in Manitoba, Canada

2021· article· en· W3186445391 on OpenAlexaffabout
Terry D. Galloway, Robert J. Lamb, Zoe Rempel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Entomologist · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicBird parasitology and diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyLouseInfestationZoologyEcologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Seven species of Turdidae (Aves: Passeriformes) in Manitoba, Canada were examined for chewing lice (Phthiraptera) in 1993–2019: Turdus migratorius ( N = 570), Catharus ustulatus ( N = 135), Catharus guttatus ( N = 49), Catharus minimus ( N = 12), Catharus fuscescens ( N = 1), Sialia sialis ( N = 4), and Sialia currucoides ( N = 3). Five species of lice on T . migratorius had a prevalence of 24.0% and a mean intensity of 16.7. Overall prevalence for lice on C . ustulatus , C . guttatus , and C . minimus was 25.0%–59.2%; mean intensity was 7.0–23.3. On S . sialis , the prevalence was 50.0%; mean intensity was 10.0. No lice infested C. fuscescens or S. currucoides . Infestation parameters for each louse–host combination are provided. Louse infestations were highly aggregated. Female lice were more prevalent than males, especially for Ricinus elongatus (Phthiraptera: Amblycera: Ricinidae) infesting T . migratorius (eight males; 81 females), or there was no significant deviation from 50:50. Infestation parameters were higher for adult T. migratorius than for juveniles or feathered chicks but not significantly so. Mean intensity was greater in spring than in fall. Louse abundance was lower than on hosts of similar size in Manitoba and lower than on thrushes in other studies.

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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.934

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 studies0.0010.000
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian EntomologistSame topicBird parasitology and diseasesFrench-language works237,207