Knowledge, attitudes and practices of rabies prevention and dog bite injuries in urban and peri-urban provinces in Cambodia, 2009
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rabies remains a major public health issue despite the existence of well established prevention and treatment protocols. Knowledge and methods of practice were evaluated in an urban and peri-urban province of Cambodia (Phnom Penh and Kandal, respectively). The majority of respondents (93.2%; 233/250) had heard of the disease rabies, of whom only 77.3% (180/233) knew it was fatal to humans. In addition, only 51.9% (121/233) were aware of the vaccine for dogs. The proportion of the population that reported a dog bite (2004-2009) was similar for Phnom Penh and Kandal. Nearly one-half of all victims (37/75) sought treatment at the Institut Pasteur-Cambodia (IPC) clinic, followed by a private clinic (19/75), a hospital (6/75) and traditional medicine (4/75); 7 victims sought no treatment and 2 reported other. Overall, children aged <15 years reported a significantly greater proportion of dog bite victims than adults aged ≥15 years [10.0% (28/280) vs 4.4% (47/1059), respectively]. Nearly all dog owners agreed to pay for their dogs' vaccination (96.5%; 136/141) and to use a collar (94.3%; 133/141). Only 41.8% (59/141) and 51.8% (73/141) would pay to have their dogs spayed and neutered, respectively. Further community education on the prevention of rabies transmission is needed. Focusing on responsible dog ownership and the importance of both the prevention and immediate treatment following a dog bite is essential to reduce rabies infection in Cambodia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".