Factors associated with milk producer\s awareness and practices in relation to zoonoses in northern Malawi
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Many diseases are known to be naturally transmissible between vertebrate animals, including cattle and humans.Currently, much effort is being made to promote dairy farming in Malawi but there is limited information about zoonotic diseases including public awareness and practices.This study was designed to determine factors associated with dairy producer's awareness and practices with regard to zoonoses in Northern Region of Malawi. Materials and Methods:A structured questionnaire was used to collect information from 140 randomly selected dairy producers between January and June 2011.Level of awareness and practices with respect to zoonotic infections was evaluated using a score ranging from 0 to 11. Chi-squared test followed by a multivariable logistic model were used to assess potential factors associated farmer's awareness and practices.2 Results: Awareness and practice level was unsatisfactory.Significantly higher number of respondents (75.7 vs. 32.9%,χ= 51.81,df =1, p< 0.001) had satisfactory level of awareness when compared to those who practiced preventive measures.Awareness of the existence of zoonotic infections and practices was higher in farmers who acquired animals through loan (p = 0.008), farmers with above primary education (p = 0.002) and farmers with more than six years of dairy farming experience (p = 0.010).Most farmers (59.3%) received information about zoonoses through Agricultural extension services.Conclusion: Awareness and practices with respect to zoonotic infections was dependent on farmer's formal educational level, dairy farming experience and means of acquiring parent stock.Regular disease surveillance and promotion of education on the risk associated with zoonotic infections through dairy extension and medical services should result in increased awareness and efficient control of zoonoses in Malawi.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".