MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2098299421 · doi:10.1017/s0950268805005108

A molecular epidemiological analysis of the incursion of the raccoon strain of rabies virus into Canada

2005· article· en· W2098299421 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Susan A. Nadin‐Davis, Frances Muldoon, Alexander I. Wandeler

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersCenters for Disease Control and PreventionMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsRabiesRabies virusOutbreakMolecular epidemiologyStrain (injury)VirologyBiologyLyssavirusRaccoon DogsGeographyTransmission (telecommunications)RhabdoviridaeVeterinary medicineZoologyGenotypeGeneticsGeneMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Three physically separate incursions of the raccoon strain of rabies have entered Canada, two into eastern Ontario in 1999 and one into New Brunswick in 2000. The course of these epizootics is described. Phylogenetic analysis of the index cases from these two provinces with raccoon rabies viruses representative of this strain in the United States supported the independence of these incursions into Canada via cross-border transmission from the United States. Genetic characterization of 190 isolates from these two Canadian provinces over a 550-bp region of the variable central portion of the viral P gene distinguished 14 variants in Ontario and five in New Brunswick although in both regions the variant represented by the initial case was most commonly encountered. The quasi-species nature of the Ontario virus was analysed using isolates taken at different times during the main outbreak to examine whether viral variation was increasing with time as well as changing in nature. These data provide a framework for study of future incursions of this rabies strain into Canada.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.900

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and InfectionSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207