MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108796266 · doi:10.1017/s0950268802006957

Comparison of vaccination strategies for the control of dog rabies in Machakos District, Kenya

2002· article· en· W2108796266 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

VenueEpidemiology and Infection · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsRabiesVaccinationConfidence intervalIncidence (geometry)Transmission (telecommunications)Veterinary medicineEpidemiologyMedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthVirologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Demographic and epidemiological field data were used in a deterministic model to describe dog rabies transmission in Machakos District, Kenya and to predict the impact of potential vaccination strategies for its control. The basic reproduction number (R0) was estimated to be 2.44 (1.52-3.36, 95% confidence limits). There were three key model predictions. The first was that a threshold dog density (K(T)) of 4.5 dogs km(-2) (3.8-5.2 dogs km(-2), 95% confidence limits) was required to maintain transmission. The second was that the estimated annual vaccination rate of 24% failed to decrease incidence and actually increased the stability of transmission and may be counter-productive. Thirdly, to control rabies, it was predicted that 59% (34%-70%, 95% confidence limits) of dogs should be vaccinated at any one time. This requires approximately 70% coverage for annual but only 60% coverage for semi-annual vaccination campaigns. Community-level vaccination trials are needed to test these predictions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.284 · 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