Preliminary Investigation of Bird and Human Movements and Disease-Management Practices in Noncommercial Poultry Flocks in Southwestern British Columbia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding normal movement patterns and husbandry practices of poultry production systems is important for understanding the dynamics of disease spread, and for controlling outbreaks of highly infectious diseases, such as highly pathogenic avian influenza. To learn about these patterns in the noncommercial or "backyard" poultry-keeping sector, an open-ended questionnaire was administered to 18 backyard-flock owners in British Columbia, Canada, and responses were analyzed descriptively. Six participants reported that they visited premises that were part of the commercial poultry system in the last year; however, bird movements between commercial and noncommercial farms were always unidirectional, from commercial to backyard. Bird movements into and out of participants' flocks occurred multiple times per month (two flocks), three times per year (five flocks), once or twice a year (nine flocks) and every 3-5 yr (two flocks). Visitors had direct contact with three participants' flocks multiple times per week; for other flocks, visitors had direct contact three times or less per year. Fourteen participants rarely had direct contact with other backyard flocks, three had contact more than once per week, and one had contact every 3 mo. Participants stated that the health of their birds was excellent (7), very good (3), good (6), O.K. (1), and all right (1), and used a median of two biosecurity practices to maintain health in their flock. Our findings suggest that bird movements are not likely to transmit disease from backyard to commercial flocks; however, human movements between backyard and commercial premises could transmit diseases. Within the backyard-flock sector, the majority of small flocks appear to pose little risk of disease transmission because they are maintained in semi-isolation from other flocks; however, a minority of flocks has high contact levels with other flocks and could be important in disease spread.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it