A comparative modeling study on non-climatic and climatic risk assessment on Asian Tiger Mosquito (Aedes albopictus)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aedes albopictus, the Asian Tiger Mosquito, vector of Chikungunya, Dengue Fever and Zika viruses, has proven its hardy adaptability in expansion from its natural Asian, forest edge, tree hole habitat on the back of international trade transportation, re-establishing in temperate urban surrounds, in a range of water receptacles and semi-enclosures of organic matter. Conventional aerial spray mosquito vector controls focus on wetland and stagnant water expanses, proven to miss the protected hollows and crevices favoured by Ae. albopictus. New control or eradication strategies are thus essential, particular in light of potential expansions in the southeastern and eastern USA. Successful regional vector control strategies require risk level analysis. Should strategies prioritize regions with non-climatic or climatic suitability parameters for Ae. albopictus? Our study used current Ae. albopictus distribution data to develop two independent models: (i) regions with suitable non-climatic factors, and (ii) regions with suitable climate for Ae. albopictus in southeastern USA. Non-climatic model processing used Evidential Belief Function (EBF), together with six geographical conditioning factors (raster data layers), to establish the probability index. Validation of the analysis results was estimated with area under the curve (AUC) using Ae. albopictus presence data. Climatic modeling was based on two General Circulation Models (GCMs), Miroc3.2 and CSIRO-MK30 running the RCP 8.5 scenario in MaxEnt software. EBF non-climatic model results achieved a 0.70 prediction rate and 0.73 success rate, confirming suitability of the study site regions for Ae. albopictus establishment. The climatic model results showed the best-fit model comprised Coldest Quarter Mean Temp, Precipitation of Wettest Quarter and Driest Quarter Precipitation factors with mean AUC value of 0.86. Both GCMs showed that the whole study site is highly suitable and will remain suitable climatically, according to the prediction for 2055, for Ae. albopictus expansion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".