Animal Health Policy Principles for Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: Shared Experience from China and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animal health policy for highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) must, for the time being, be based on expert opinion and shared international experience. We used the intellectual capital and knowledge of experienced Chinese and Canadian practitioners and policy makers to inform policy options for China and find shared policy elements applicable to both countries. No peer-reviewed comprehensive evaluations or systematic regulatory impact assessments of animal health policies were found. Sixteen guiding policy principles emerged from our thematic analysis of Chinese and Canadian policies. We provide a list of shared policy goals, targets and elements for HPAI preparedness, response and recovery. Policy elements clustered in a manner consistent with core public health competencies. Complex situations like HPAI require complex and adaptive policies, yet policies that cross jurisdictions and are fully integrated across agencies are rare. We encourage countries to develop or deploy capacity to undertake and publish regulatory impact assessments and policy evaluation to identify policy needs and provide a basis for evidence-based policy development.
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 | 0.018 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".