MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125440323 · doi:10.1111/zph.12101

An Evaluation of Rabies Vaccination Rates among Canines and Felines Involved in Biting Incidents within the Wellington–Dufferin–Guelph Public Health Department

2014· article· en· W2125440323 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kate Bottoms, Lise A. Trotz‐Williams, Sarah M. Hutchison, John Macleod, Jane Dixon, Olaf Berke, Zvonimir Poljak

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsGuelph General HospitalUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRabiesMedicineAnimal BitesDog biteVeterinary medicineVaccinationBitingPublic healthPopulationEnvironmental healthDemographyBiologyVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objectives of this study were to determine the rate of animal bite incidents occurring in the human population of a local health department, and to determine the proportion of these canines and felines that were not up to date on their rabies vaccination at the time the incident occurred. Data were obtained from animal bite incidents reported to Wellington-Dufferin-Guelph Public Health during 2010 and 2011. Descriptive statistics of 718 eligible reports revealed the average rate of animal biting was 1.55 bites per 1000 residents per year. Approximately 54% of these animals were vaccinated against rabies, 32% were not up to date with their rabies vaccination, and the remaining 14.5% were of unknown status. The unit of analysis was the municipality, and the four outcomes of interest were: (i) number of animal bite incidents per 1000 residents, (ii) number of dog bite incidents per 1000 residents, (iii) proportion of animals involved in bite incidents that were not up to date with their rabies vaccination, and (iv) proportion of dogs that were not up to date. Associations between the outcomes and selected demographic variables were investigated using regression analysis. The number of veterinary clinics per 10,000 residents, and whether the municipality was urban or rural were identified as significant predictors for the number of animal bites per 1000 residents, and the number of dog bites. There were no significant predictors for the proportion of unvaccinated animals or dogs. Spatial clustering and the location of spatial clusters were assessed using the empirical Bayes index and spatial scan test. This analysis identified five municipalities within the health department that have a high rate of biting incidents and a high proportion of animals that were not up to date on their rabies vaccination. Such municipalities are ideal for targeted educational campaigns regarding the importance of vaccination in pets.

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 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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207