MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7100010646

Lesions Caused by Parelaphostrongylus odocoilei (Nematoda: Metastrongyloidea) in Two Cervid Hosts

2016· article· en· W7100010646 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicMusicology and Musical Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOdocoileusPathogenHost (biology)NematodeLarvaParasite hostingMyositisVirulence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Pathologic effects and host response were evaluated in seven white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and six mule deer (0. hemionus hemionus) each exposed per 0s to 300 or 1000 third-stage larvae of Parelaphostrongylus odocoilei. Pathologic effects in mule deer consisted of hemorrhagic myositis throughout skeletal muscles, severe verminous pneumonia, and moderate lymphadenitis. The major host response was a granulomatous inflammation associated with nematode eggs and larvae. Granulomas obliterated the normal architecture of affected tissues. Pathologic effects and host response were minimal in white-tailed deer. P. odocoilei is considered a potential direct or indirect pathogen in mule deer but an insignificant parasite in white-tailed deer. Natural infections of Parelaphostrongylus odocoilei (Hobmaier and Hobmaier 1934) are reported only from black-tailed deer, Odocoileus hemionus columbianus and/or mule deer, 0. h. hemionus in California'* * and Alberta. ' Although specific identification of P. odocoilei is possible only on the basis of morphology of adult worms, a high prevalence of eggs and larvae indistin-guishable from those of P. odocoilei ' [Samuel, unpub-

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.229 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMusicology and Musical AnalysisFrench-language works237,207