MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145542396 · doi:10.1637/9115-102209-resnote.1

Infectious Bursal Disease Virus as a Surrogate for Studies on Survival of Various Poultry Viruses in Compost

2010· article· en· W2145542396 on OpenAlexaff
Jiewen Guan, M. Chan, Brian W. Brooks, J. L. Spencer

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Diseases · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfectious bursal diseaseVirusBiologyInoculationBursa of FabriciusVirologyCompostMicrobiologyVeterinary medicineVirulenceImmunologyMedicineAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infectious bursal disease virus (IBDV) is resistant to many environmental stresses and often persists on farms for months. This study investigated survival of a vaccine strain of IBDV in the bursa of Fabricius and splenic tissue from experimentally infected chickens and in splenic tissue and manure that had been inoculated with the virus. The specimens buried in compost were contained within nylon mesh bags, and the tissues were enclosed within the abdominal cavity of chicken carcasses. Extracts of composted specimens were inoculated into Vero cell cultures, and real-time reverse transcriptase PCR was used to quantify the virus in the cultures. By day 7 in compost, the temperature had been slightly above 55 C for 2.6 days and IBDV had been inactivated in specimens that had been inoculated with virus but had survived in tissues that had been taken from infected chickens. By day 14, the temperature had been above 55 C for 8.8 days and the virus was inactivated in all specimens. The results suggest that composting of poultry carcasses and manure would help to break the cycle of infection with IBDV and that the virus could be valuable as a surrogate for predicting the inactivation of less resistant viruses during composting.

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)0.000
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.980

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.322 · 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

Citations18
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian DiseasesSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207