MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2406948020

Rabies in Canada - 2011

2012· article· pt· W2406948020 on OpenAlexaffabout
M. Kimberly Knowles, Josephine Kush, Zahid Iqbal, P. M. Hamill, Christine Fehlner‐Gardiner

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista de Educação Continuada em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia do CRMV-SP · 2012
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVulpesRabiesLagopusArctic foxEptesicus fuscusVeterinary medicineWildlifeGeographyArcticBiologyZoologyEcologyMedicineVirologyPredation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2011, 4397 suspect rabid animals were submitted for testing to the Canadian Food Inspection Agency diagnostic laboratories in Ottawa, Ontario and Lethbridge, Alberta. Of these, 115 (2.6%) tested positive in the fluorescent antibody test (FAT). Additionally, enhanced wildlife surveillance samples from Ontario (ON, n=185) and Alberta (AB, n=88) were tested and found to be negative. The majority of rabies cases were detected in the province of Saskatchewan (n=34), followed by ON (n=26), Manitoba (n=21), Quebec (n=17), British Columbia (n=7), Northwest Territories (n=6) and Nunavut (n=4). No cases were found in AB, Yukon Territories, or the Atlantic provinces, although with the exception of AB, samples submissions were very low (1 to 40 samples) from these regions. The striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) was the species most frequently found positive (n=42), followed by big brown bat (Eptesicus fuscus, n=35), Arctic fox (Vulpes lagopus, n=11) and red fox (V. vulpes, n=5). Spillover of wildlife rabies variants into domestic animals was observed in 1 bovine and 1 dog (Arctic fox variant), and in 4 cats, 2 horses and 1 dog (Western skunk variant). The remaining positive cases were found in various bat species. Positive cases involving human exposures originated from 33 different counties, whereas those with only domestic animal exposures or no exposures noted came from 58 and 14 counties, respectively. Of the 105 counties represented only 6 were common to two or more exposure categories. While 1% of samples with human exposures tested positive, 10.6% of those with domestic animal exposure, and 5.2% of those with no exposure indicated tested positive for rabies. In addition to the animal samples, seven human suspect cases were tested by RT-PCR and/or FAT on saliva and nuchal skin biopsy samples; all were negative for rabies.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.350

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista de Educação Continuada em Medicina Veterinária e Zootecnia do CRMV-SPSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207