MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1580686281 · doi:10.1002/9781118543504.ch45

Geospatial technologies and spatial data analysis: PART 2: Use of geographic information systems and spatial analysis in infectious disease surveillance in North America and East Africa

2013· other· en· W1580686281 on OpenAlexafffund
Sunny Mak, Rebecca J. Eisen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFungal Infections and Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease Control
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsZoonosisGeospatial analysisGeographyEmerging infectious diseaseCartographyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Spatial epidemiologyGeographic information systemSpatial analysisDiseaseDisease surveillanceEnvironmental healthVector (molecular biology)BiologyEpidemiologyMedicineVirologyRemote sensingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most instances, the spatial distribution of infectious disease cases or pathogens is not random. This is particularly true for diseases with etiologic agents that are dependent on vector-borne transmission, or have zoonotic or environmental reservoirs. This chapter highlights the use of geographic information systems and spatial analysis to support infectious disease surveillance of Cryptococcus gattii, an emerging fungal pathogen recently detected in the Pacific Northwest of North America, and Yersinia pestis, an age-old vector-borne zoonosis that is still present in many parts of the world. Spatial risk modeling of areas posing an elevated risk of exposure to C. gattii and Y. pestis based on ecologic, climatic, and topographical variables is described, and the challenges of working with geographically indexed disease surveillance data are discussed in the case studies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0060.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFungal Infections and Studies→French-language works237,207→