MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062526578 · doi:10.1038/emi.2013.81

The risk of Rift Valley fever virus introduction and establishment in the United States and European Union

2013· review· en· W2062526578 on OpenAlexaff
Alicia I. Rolin, Lea Berrang‐Ford, Manisha A. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueEmerging Microbes & Infections · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRift Valley feverEuropean unionVirologyGeographyBiologyVirusInternational tradeBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rift Valley fever virus (RVFV) is an arthropod-borne disease resulting in severe morbidity and mortality in both human and ruminant populations. First identified in Kenya in 1930, the geographical range of RVFV has been largely constrained to the African continent, yet has recently spread to new regions, and is identified as a priority disease with potential for geographic emergence. We present a systematic literature review assessing the potential for RVFV introduction and establishment in the United States (US) and European Union (EU). Viable pathways for the introduction of RVFV include: transport of virus-carrying vectors, importation of viremic hosts and intentional entry of RVFV as a biological weapon. It is generally assumed that the risk of RVFV introduction into the US or EU is low. We argue that the risk of sporadic introduction is likely high, though currently an insufficient proportion of such introductions coincide with optimal environmental conditions. Future global trends may increase the likelihood of risk factors for RVFV spread.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations131
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmerging Microbes & InfectionsSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207