Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this issue of Clinical Infectious Diseases, Forgie et al [1] offer the most compelling documentation to date of the introduction of a human influenza virus into a pig herd and subsequent related influenza epidemics in both pig and human populations. Although their article could be criticized, because nasal swab specimens from pigs were not taken to prove that the virus was not already enzootic before the likely human index case, circumstances and investigational data strongly support the authors’ interpretation of the data. The event occurred at a closely monitored Canadian swine research facility, where biosecurity and laboratory support had protected the pig herd from other common swine respiratory infections. The authors’ position that this was an acute and explosive human introduction of pandemic influenza A (H1N1) virus (pH1N1) in a modern swine facility was supported by the chronology of the signs in the pigs and signs and symptoms in the swine workers, the serologic investigation in the workers, the molecular detection of pH1N1 in pigs and the workers, and the subsequent genomic comparisons of the influenza A isolates.
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 | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.043 | 0.053 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".