Landscape genetics and the spatial distribution of chronic wasting disease
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the spread of wildlife disease is critical for identifying populations at risk, targeting surveillance and designing proactive management programmes. We used a landscape genetics approach to identify landscape features that influenced gene flow and the distribution of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Wisconsin white-tailed deer. CWD prevalence was negatively correlated with genetic differentiation of study area deer from deer in the area of disease origin (core-area). Genetic differentiation was greatest, and CWD prevalence lowest, in areas separated from the core-area by the Wisconsin River, indicating that this river reduced deer gene flow and probably disease spread. Features of the landscape that influence host dispersal and spatial patterns of disease can be identified based on host spatial genetic structure. Landscape genetics may be used to predict high-risk populations based on their genetic connection to infected populations and to target disease surveillance, control and preventative activities.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it