Evaluation of the Control of West Nile Virus in Ontario: Did Risk Patterns Change from 2005 to 2012?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to evaluate and compare the risk distribution of human cases of West Nile virus (WNV) disease in Ontario in 2005 to 2012. The objectives were to: map the risk distribution of WNV in 2005 and 2012, identify clusters of human WNV disease and determine whether the clusters are significantly different between the years 2005 and 2012. West Nile virus surveillance data were used to calculate empirical Bayesian smoothed estimates of disease incidence in southern Ontario for 2005 and 2012. Choropleth maps were generated to visualize the spatial risk distribution, and the spatial scan test was performed to identify clusters of disease. Following identification of clusters for 2005 and 2012, a Poisson model was applied to the 2012 human WNV incidence adjusted for the smoothed human WNV incidence rate from 2005 and the scan test was repeated. Two significant clusters were identified in both the year 2005 and 2012. In 2005, the primary cluster was located in the Windsor-Essex and Chatham-Kent public health units (PHUs). For 2012, the primary cluster was identified in the Golden Horseshoe area. A cluster analysis for 2012 adjusted for those identified in 2005 resulted in one significant cluster in the Windsor-Essex PHU. In 2012, the Windsor-Essex PHU remained as a high-risk area for human WNV disease when compared with the rest of southern Ontario. Although overall risk may change from year to year, public health programming should be employed to decrease the relative risk of WNV in this area.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".