AVIAN BORNAVIRUS IN FREE-RANGING WATERFOWL: PREVALENCE OF ANTIBODIES AND CLOACAL SHEDDING OF VIRAL RNA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We surveyed free-ranging Canada Geese (Branta canadensis), Trumpeter Swans (Cygnus buccinator), Mute Swans (Cygnus olor), and Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) to estimate the prevalence of antibodies to avian bornavirus (ABV) and of cloacal shedding of ABV RNA in southern Ontario, Canada. Blood samples and cloacal swabs were collected from 206 free-ranging Canada Geese, 135 Trumpeter Swans, 75 Mute Swans, and 208 Mallards at 10 main capture sites between October 2010 and May 2012. Sera were assessed for antibodies against ABV by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and swabs were evaluated for ABV RNA using real-time reverse-transcription PCR. Serum antibodies were detected in birds from all four species and at each sampling site. Thirteen percent of the geese caught on the Toronto Zoo site shed ABV RNA in feces compared with 0% in geese sampled at three other locations. The proportions of shedders among Mute Swans, Trumpeter Swans, and Mallards were 9%, 0%, and 0%, respectively. Birds that were shedding viral RNA were more likely to have antibodies against ABV and to have higher antibody levels than those that were not, although many birds with antibodies were not shedding. We confirmed that exposure to, or infection with, ABV is widespread in asymptomatic free-ranging waterfowl in Canada; however, the correlation between cloacal shedding, presence of antibodies, and presence of disease is not fully understood.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".