MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1950477447 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v4n6p1

Risk-Benefit Assessment of Hog Mandibular Lymph Node Incision at Slaughter in Canada

2015· article· en· W1950477447 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
André Ravel, Boubacar Yoro Sidibé, Pascal Moreau, Jean-Robert Bisaillon

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiology
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual inspectionContext (archaeology)Food safetyRisk assessmentMedicineBusinessSurgeryRisk analysis (engineering)BiologyPathologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of a risk-based meat inspection modernization, the change towards a visual only inspection of all hog mandibular lymph nodes (MLN) has been made in some countries and is considered in Canada. In fact, the current mandatory incision and visual inspection of all MLNs put in force a century ago to detect signs of infection by Mycobacterium bovis may no longer be relevant and may even generate cross-contamination by bacteria potentially pathogenic to humans. To support a science-based decision, a qualitative risk-benefit assessment following the European Food Safety Authority framework was undertaken for each inspection approach (with or without systematic incision). Both risk-benefit assessments led to similar results in concluding that the benefit of any MLN inspection for the detection of M. bovis infection in hogs is no longer existent. For the risk associated with this incision, data is lacking to differentiate the risk between both inspections on the qualitative scale chosen. In conclusion, the scientific opinion is that the replacement of the current systematic incision and visual inspection of all hog MLNs by a systematic visual-only inspection of all MLNs will not affect the food safety risks and in fact may reduce some of them.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score0.503

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.105
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.244 · 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
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicSalmonella and Campylobacter epidemiologyFrench-language works237,207