Antimicrobial Use and Resistance in Animals
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Food animals in the United States are often exposed to antimicrobials to treat and prevent infectious disease or to promote growth. Many of these antimicrobials are identical to or closely resemble drugs used in humans. Precise figures for the quantity of antimicrobials used in animals are not publicly available in the United States, and estimates vary widely. Antimicrobial resistance has emerged in zoonotic enteropathogens (e.g., Salmonella spp., Campylobacter spp.), commensal bacteria (e.g., Escherichia coli, enterococci), and bacterial pathogens of animals (e.g., Pasteurella, Actinobacillus spp.), but the prevalence of resistance varies. Antimicrobial resistance emerges from the use of antimicrobials in animals and the subsequent transfer of resistance genes and bacteria among animals and animal products and the environment. To slow the development of resistance, some countries have restricted antimicrobial use in feed, and some groups advocate similar measures in the United States. Alternatives to growth-promoting and prophylactic uses of antimicrobials in agriculture include improved management practices, wider use of vaccines, and introduction of probiotics. Monitoring programs, prudent use guidelines, and educational campaigns provide approaches to minimize the further development of antimicrobial resistance.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it