MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413682373

Antimicrobial dispensing by Ontario dairy veterinarians.

2015· article· en· W2413682373 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Léger, Nathalie C. Newby, Richard J. Reid‐Smith, Neil G. Anderson, David L. Pearl, K. Lissemore, D.F. Kelton

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens research
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAntimicrobial stewardshipMedical prescriptionAntimicrobialFamily medicineHerdDemographicsVeterinary medicineAntibiotic resistanceNursingAntibioticsMicrobiologyDemographyBiology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was designed to capture the demographics of dairy practitioners in Ontario and to describe aspects of antimicrobial dispensing on-farm and over-the-counter by these veterinarians. The information collected revealed that the prescription status of a drug and the level of veterinary-client-patient relationship were important elements of dispensing policies. Over-the-counter dispensing records were incomplete, while only a small proportion of on-farm dispensing records contained pertinent information and directions as required by the Veterinarians Act. While respondents recognized that antimicrobial use in dairy herds could lead to resistance in cattle, few indicated that this was a significant public health issue. Veterinarians can play a key role in antimicrobial stewardship, part of which is the provision of complete written dispensing instructions to producers for antimicrobial use in dairy cattle.

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)0.003
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 score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations8
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicClostridium difficile and Clostridium perfringens researchFrench-language works237,207