MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W183400767 · doi:10.21423/aabppro19995597

Biosecurity Practices to Limit Spread of Staphylococcus aureus on Ontario Sentinel Dairy Farms

2020· article· en· W183400767 on OpenAlexaffabout
A. Godkin, D.F. Kelton, D. Alves, K. Lissemore, K. Leslie, N. Smart, C. Church, Paul Meadows

Bibliographic record

VenueTexas A&M University Libraries · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerdBiosecurityMilkingVeterinary medicineAnimal scienceBiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From May 1997 to December 1998, 40 dairy veterinarians from across the province, and 60 of their dairy producer clients, participated in the Sentinel Herd pilot project. Composite milk samples from all lactating cows in each herd were collected and cultured every 4 months. A milking and management questionnaire was administered to each participating producer at the time of the initial herd culture. Several questions pertaining to the herd's biosecurity practices were included. Based on the first 4 rounds of herd cultures, only 4 herds did not have any cows from which Staphylococcus aureus (HS) was isolated (negative herds). Three herds had positive cows on 1 herd culture and 6 herds had positive cows on 2 herds cultures. Fifteen herds were positive 3 times and 32 herds, all 4 times. As HS has been shown to be present in most of these herds, it is likely that many herds run a great risk of introducing this infection at some time. Therefore, it is of importance to examine the factors that appear to control it within a herd, once introduced.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.642
Threshold uncertainty score0.712

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.191 · 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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTexas A&M University LibrariesSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207