MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2110426497 · doi:10.1017/s1466252308001606

Veterinary vaccines: alternatives to antibiotics?

2008· review· en· W2110426497 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Health Research Reviews · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVaccinationDiseaseMedicineDisease controlInfectious disease (medical specialty)AntibioticsIntensive care medicineDisease preventionImmunologyVirologyBiologyMicrobiologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevention of infectious diseases of animals by vaccination has been routinely practiced for decades and has proved to be one of the most cost-effective methods of disease control. However, since the pioneering work of Pasteur in the 1880s, the composition of veterinary vaccines has changed very little from a conceptual perspective and this has, in turn, limited their application in areas such as the control of chronic infectious diseases. New technologies in the areas of vaccine formulation and delivery as well as our increased knowledge of disease pathogenesis and the host responses associated with protection from disease offer promising alternatives for vaccine formulation as well as targets for the prevention of bacterial disease. These new vaccines have the potential to lessen our reliance on antibiotics for disease control, but will only reach their full potential when used in combination with other intervention strategies.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.034

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 head0.581
GPT teacher head0.587
Teacher spread0.006 · 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