Optimal Tracking and Testing of U.S. and Canadian Herds for BSE: A Value‐of‐Information (VOI) Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) tests a subset of cattle slaughtered in the United States for bovine spongiform encephalitis (BSE). Knowing the origin of cattle (U.S. vs. Canadian) at testing could enable new testing or surveillance policies based on the origin of cattle testing positive. For example, if a Canadian cow tests positive for BSE, while no U.S. origin cattle do, the United States could subject Canadian cattle to more stringent testing. This article illustrates the application of a value-of-information (VOI) framework to quantify and compare potential economic costs to the United States of implementing tracking cattle origins to the costs of not doing so. The potential economic value of information from a tracking program is estimated to exceed its costs by more than five-fold if such information can reduce future losses in export and domestic markets and reduce future testing costs required to reassure or win back customers. Sensitivity analyses indicate that this conclusion is somewhat robust to many technical, scientific, and market uncertainties, including the current prevalence of BSE in the United States and/or Canada and the likely reactions of consumers to possible future discoveries of BSE in the United States and/or Canada. Indeed, the potential value of tracking information is great enough to justify locating and tracking Canadian cattle already in the United States when this can be done for a reasonable cost. If aggressive tracking and testing can win back lost exports, then the VOI of a tracking program may increase to over half a billion dollars per year.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".