MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Salmonella spp. infections in finishing swine in Alberta

2001· article· en· W156953252 on OpenAlexaffabout
Andrijana Rajić, Julia Keenliside, Margaret McFall, John Wu, Eva Y W Chow, Anne Deckert, Anne Muckle, Ken Manninen, Cate Dewey, Scott McEwen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on the Epidemiology and Control of Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards in Pigs and Pork · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSalmonellaVirologyBiologyMicrobiologyBacteriaGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective was to estimate the bacteriological farm prevalence of Salmonella infections on 89 finishing farms in Alberta. Furthermore, the pattern of almonella farm infections over time, distribution within the farm environment and the serotype distribution were investigated. On a farm level, at least one Salmonella positive fecal sample was detected from 51.68% of participating farms. Finishing farms with no positive Salmonella samples on one sampling occasion might have one or more positive samples on other occasions. Classifying a farm based on a single sampling may not be adequate to understand the Salmonella farm status. More than 95% of Salmonella isolates belonged to the serogroups B, C I or D I, while the most frequent serotypes were S. derby, S. infantis and S. typhimurium. A good correlation between serology based on the mix- ELISA and culture based on pen fecal pools was observed on a farm level. High recovery rates from environmental samples suggest that an environment contaminated with Salmonella may contribute to the persistence of Salmonella within a farm.

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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.584

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations3
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on the Epidemiology and Control of Biological, Chemical and Physical Hazards in Pigs and Pork→Same topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology→French-language works237,207→