MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6950246660 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.6269586

Comatacarus americanus Ewing

2004· article· en· W6950246660 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicParasite Biology and Host Interactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicrotusInsectivorePeromyscusSorexLarvaNearctic ecozoneSouth carolina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comatacarus americanus Ewing Aiken Co., Savannah River Ecology Laboratory’s Mill Creek grid, May 1986, ex Blarina carolinensis (Bachman), coll. Whitaker, Hartman, and Hein (Whitaker et al. 1994); Barnwell Co., Savannah River Site, 20 May–15 June 1980, ex B. carolinensis in a pitfall trap; Oconee Co., Coon Branch, 4 March 1993, ex Sorex hoyi Baird, coll. P. Swillings. Based on our collection records, C. americanus occurs in both the mountains and piedmont of South Carolina. Larvae were attached to the face and ears of their hosts. Comatacarus americanus was the only chigger on B. carolinensis at the Savannah River Site (Whitaker et al. 1994). Comatacarus americanus is a parasite of rodents and insectivores and was reported from a “western mole” in Oregon and a “cotton mouse” in Alabama (Brennan & Goff 1977; Ewing 1942). Larvae were taken in Kansas from Peromyscus maniculatus (Wagner) and Reithrodontomys megalotis (Baird); in Colorado from Neotoma cinerea (Ord) and Neotoma mexicana Baird (Loomis 1956); in California from Spermophilus beecheyi (Richardson), Microtus californicus (Peale), and Thomomys bottae (Eydoux and Gervais) (Brennan & Jones 1954); and in Canada from Blarina brevicauda (Say) (Jameson 1950).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.005

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)→Same topicParasite Biology and Host Interactions→French-language works237,207→