Parasite infections at the Roman fort of Vindolanda by Hadrian’s Wall, UK
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Archaeological sediments can be used to retrieve evidence for parasites that infected past populations, giving evidence for disease, diet, sanitation, and migration in the past. To increase our understanding of parasite infections in Roman Britain and determine which parasites may have infected people living at Vindolanda, sediment samples were collected from a drain connected to a latrine at the bath complex of Vindolanda. These samples were used to look for preserved parasite eggs and cysts deposited in the drain with the faeces of people who used the latrine. Microscopic analysis was used to identify eggs of helminths, and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to look for protozoan parasites that can cause severe diarrhoea. Eggs of Ascaris sp. (roundworm) and Trichuris sp. (whipworm) were found by microscopy and Giardia duodenalis was detected using ELISA. All of these parasites are transmitted by the faecal-oral route, usually through contaminated food and water. This is the first evidence for G. duodenalis in Roman Britain. A range of zoonotic and faecal-oral parasites have been found at other sites in Roman Britain, yet the drain studied from Vindolanda only contained faecal-oral parasites that can be transmitted directly between humans. This predominance of faecal-oral parasites is similar to a pattern found in large urban sites in the Roman Mediterranean and other military sites in the empire. In contrast, sites from larger urban cities in Roman Britain, such as London and York, appear to have a more diverse range of parasites.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".