Community structure of helminth parasites in whitefish from the Caribou Mountains, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Spatial patterns in parasite communities of freshwater fish are often characterized as low in diversity and unpredictable.Whether or not this view is a true reflection of community patterns is unclear, in particular when comparing studies of parasite communities of fish occurring in man-altered ecosystems.To understand the structure of a fish parasite community, I first described the parasite fauna of 13 species of freshwater fish from 19 islolated lakes on the Caribou Mountains plateau in northern Alberta.After my initial broad-scale survey, I selected the diverse and complex community of parasites in whitefish, (Coregonus clupeaformis) for further analysis.This host had the most diverse parasite community of any species of fish on the plateau and was disproportionally important in the dissemination of parasites to the other species of fish.Ten parasite species infected whitefish in the 7 large lakes on the plateau; 7 were core species (i.e found in every lake) and 9 were salmonid specialists.Parasite intensities were much higher (>100 per host) in the Caribou Mountains than elsewhere in Canada, as was community similarity (>70%).Ordination analyses showed that 48% of the variation in parasite intensities between lakes could be explained by factors associated with aquatic productivity (e.g.chlorophyll-a and total phosphorus).Low-intensity lakes were characterized by low productivity and high colour and high-intensity lakes had high productivity and low colour.Patterns of high similarity between lakes, together with the association between aquatic productivity and community structure shows that the spatial structure of parasite communities can be predicted on the basis of a common suite of specialist, core species. General introduction 1"2. Composition of the parasite component community in fish from the Caribou Mountains, northern Alberta
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 teacher head, 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".