MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969841228 · doi:10.7589/0090-3558-40.1.60

EXPERIMENTAL BRUCELLA ABORTUS INFECTION IN WOLVES

2004· article· en· W1969841228 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stacy V. Tessaro, L B Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Wildlife Diseases · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanisBiologyBrucella abortusBrucellosisBison bisonBiovarBrucellaSerologyVeterinary medicineTiterMicrobiologyVirologyImmunologyAntibodyBacteriaEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four juvenile male wolves (Canis lupus) each received an oral dose of 1.6-1.7 x 10(12) colony-forming units of Brucella abortus biovar 1 isolated from a bison (Bison bison) in Wood Buffalo National Park (Canada), and two others served as negative controls. Infected wolves did not show clinical signs of disease but did develop high Brucella antibody titers. Small numbers of B. abortus were excreted sporadically in feces until day 50 postinoculation (PI). Very small numbers of the bacterium were isolated from urine of only one wolf late on the same day that it was infected, and very small numbers of colonies of B. abortus were obtained from buccal swabs of three wolves for up to 48 hr PI. Two infected wolves euthanized 6 mo after the start of the experiment had no lesions, and colonies of B. abortus were isolated from thymus and most major lymph nodes. The other two infected wolves euthanized 12 mo after the start of the experiment had no lesions, and smaller numbers of brucellae were recovered from fewer lymph nodes compared with the wolves killed 6 mo earlier. The sporadic excretion of very small numbers of brucellae by the wolves was insignificant when compared with the infective dose for cattle. Brucella abortus, brucellosis, Canis lupus, pathogenesis, serology, wolf.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.875

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.310 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations29
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Wildlife DiseasesSame topicBrucella: diagnosis, epidemiology, treatmentFrench-language works237,207