The 2001 epidemic of foot‐and‐mouth disease in the United Kingdom: epidemiological and meteorological case studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The possibility of the airborne spread of foot-and-mouth disease during the 2001 epidemic in the uk has been investigated in three epidemiological case studies. On the basis of evidence from field investigations, and a simple meteorological analysis, it is concluded that the spread of disease was consistent with the airborne transport of virus. The distances ranged from less than 1 km to 16 km; six of the farms were over 6 km from the source and involved the passage of virus over the sea combined with meteorological conditions which strongly favoured airborne disease transmission. The results of detailed atmospheric modelling demonstrated that airborne virus could have challenged livestock on all the farms studied. However, with one exception the 24-hour average daily concentrations of the virus were significantly below the experimentally estimated threshold for infection. A detailed model intercomparison established that, under stable atmospheric conditions, peak concentrations of virus up to two orders of magnitude higher might have been experienced for short periods, owing to fluctuations within the plume of virus, and model limitations. This finding would significantly reduce the apparent discrepancy between the experimentally estimated threshold for infection and the modelling results.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".