MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107828004 · doi:10.1017/s1466252312000102

The microbiome of the soft palate of swine

2012· review· en· W2107828004 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Health Research Reviews · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTonsilActinobacillusBiologyFirmicutesSoft palateMicrobiomePasteurellaceaePasteurellaPalatine tonsilMicrobiologyHerdHaemophilusImmunologyHaemophilus influenzaeMedicineGeneticsAntibioticsBacteria16S ribosomal RNAEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tonsil of the soft palate in pigs is a secondary lymphoid tissue that provides a first line of defense against foreign antigens entering by the mouth or nares. It has been known for a long time to be the site of colonization of important swine and zoonotic bacterial pathogens. Initially our understanding of microbes present at this site came from culture-based studies. Very recently, sequence-based approaches have been used to identify the core microbiome of the swine tonsil. Although animal to animal and herd to herd variation was detected in these studies, >90 of the organisms detected belonged to the phyla Proteobacteria and Firmicutes. Members of the family Pasteurellaceae appeared to be predominate in the tonsil; however, the relative proportions of Actinobacillus, Haemophilus, and Pasteurella varied. Members of the families Moraxellaceae, Fusobacteriaceae, Veillonellaceae, and Neisseriaceae were also seen as frequent residents of the tonsil.

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 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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.466
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.065 · 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