MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3204975317 · doi:10.1139/cjfas-2020-0484

Whirling disease in the Crowsnest River: an emerging threat to wild salmonids in Alberta

2021· article· en· W3204975317 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Clayton James, Marie Veillard, Amanda M. Martens, Emmanuel A. Pila, Alyssa Turnbull, Patrick C. Hanington, Andreas Luek, Julie D. Alexander, R. Barry Nehring

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMyxozoan Parasites in Aquatic Species
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaGovernment of AlbertaGovernment of CanadaFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRainbow troutTubifex tubifexBiologyTroutOutbreakMyxozoaTubifexZoologyEcologyFish <Actinopterygii>Fishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We provide the first documented case of whirling disease (WD) impacts to wild, self-sustaining rainbow trout (RNTR, Oncorynchus mykiss) populations in Canada. Myxobolus cerebralis (Mc), the causative agent of WD, was first confirmed in Alberta in 2016. However, evidence of disease in local fish populations was unknown. Using a weight-of-evidence approach, we examined multiple parasite life cycle stages in the Crowsnest River, Alberta. Percentage of infected Tubifex tubifex worms actively shedding triactinomyxons (TAMs) exceeded known thresholds of Mc establishment and TAM densities instream exceeded thresholds known to cause ≥90% declines in RNTR populations. Mc was detected at 5 of 6 study sites in water, fish, and worms. Disease severity was highest in the lower watershed where 100% of sentinel fish tested positive for Mc 7 to 14 days post-exposure; up to 85% of wild fingerling RNTR showed clinical signs of disease and yearling trout were largely absent from the river suggesting reduced survival. Our findings indicate conditions necessary for outbreak of WD exist in Alberta, highlighting the need to consider this disease as an emerging threat to wild salmonid populations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations16
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic SciencesSame topicMyxozoan Parasites in Aquatic SpeciesFrench-language works237,207