Exposure to infectious agents in dogs in remote coastal British Columbia: Possible sentinels of diseases in wildlife and humans.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ranked among the top threats to conservation worldwide, infectious disease is of particular concern for wild canids because domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) may serve as sources and reservoirs of infection. On British Columbia's largely undeveloped but rapidly changing central and north coasts, little is known about diseases in wolves (Canis lupus) or other wildlife. However, several threats exist for transfer of diseases among unvaccinated dogs and wolves. To gain baseline data on infectious agents in this area, including those with zoonotic potential, we collected blood and stool samples from 107 dogs in 5 remote communities in May and September 2007. Serology revealed that the dogs had been exposed to canine parvovirus, canine distemper virus, Bordetella bronchiseptica, canine respiratory coronavirus, and Leptospira interrogans. No dogs showed evidence of exposure to Ehrlichia canis, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Borrelia burgdorferi, Dirofilaria immitis, or Cryptococcus gattii. Of 75 stool samples, 31 contained at least 1 parasitic infection, including Taeniid tapeworms, the nematodes Toxocara canis and Toxascaris leonina, and the protozoans Isospora sp., Giardia sp., Cryptosporidium sp., and Sarcocystis sp. This work provides a sound baseline for future monitoring of infectious agents that could affect dogs, sympatric wild canids, other wildlife, and humans.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".