MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982836352 · doi:10.1111/jfd.12285

Piscine reovirus in wild and farmed salmonids in <scp>B</scp>ritish <scp>C</scp>olumbia, <scp>C</scp>anada: 1974–2013

2014· article· en· W1982836352 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gary D. Marty, Diane Morrison, Julie Bidulka, Tomy Joseph, Ahmed Siah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fish Diseases · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Aquatic Health SciencesUniversity of ManitobaMinistry of Agriculture
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyCell biologyMolecular biologyFishery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piscine reovirus (PRV) was common among wild and farmed salmonids in British Columbia, western Canada, from 1987 to 2013. Salmonid tissues tested for PRV by real-time rRT-PCR included sections from archived paraffin blocks from 1974 to 2008 (n = 363) and fresh-frozen hearts from 2013 (n = 916). The earliest PRV-positive sample was from a wild-source steelhead trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), from 1977. By histopathology (n = 404), no fish had lesions diagnostic for heart and skeletal muscle inflammation (HSMI). In some groups, lymphohistiocytic endocarditis affected a greater proportion of fish with PRV than fish without PRV, but the range of Ct values among affected fish was within the range of Ct values among unaffected fish. Also, fish with the lowest PRV Ct values (18.4-21.7) lacked endocarditis or any other consistent lesion. From 1987 to 1994, the proportion of PRV positives was not significantly different between farmed Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar L. (44% of 48), and wild-source salmonids (31% of 45). In 2013, the proportion of PRV positives was not significantly different between wild coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch (Walbaum), sampled from British Columbia (5.0% of 60) or the reference region, Alaska, USA (10% of 58).

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.302
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.204 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations71
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fish DiseasesSame topicAquaculture disease management and microbiotaFrench-language works237,207