A Retrospective Economic Analysis of the Ontario Red Fox Oral Rabies Vaccination Programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ontario initiated a red fox (Vulpes vulpes) oral rabies vaccination (ORV) programme in 1989. This study utilized a benefit-cost analysis to determine if this ORV programme was economically worthwhile. Between 1979 and 1989, prior to ORV baiting, the average annual human post-exposure treatments, positive red fox rabies diagnostic tests and indemnity payments for livestock lost to rabies were 2248, 1861 and $246,809, respectively. After baiting, from 1990 to 2000, a 35%, 66% and 41% decrease in post-exposure treatments, animal rabies tests and indemnity payments was observed, respectively. These reductions were viewed as benefits of the ORV programme, whereas total costs were those associated with ORV baiting. Multiple techniques were used to estimate four different benefit streams and the total estimated benefits ranged from $35,486,316 to $98,413,217. The annual mean ORV programme cost was $6,447,720, with total programme costs of $77,372,637. The average benefit-cost ratios over the analysis period were .49, 1.06, 1.27 and 1.36, indicating overall programme efficiency in three of the four conservative scenarios.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".