MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2518437562 · doi:10.54846/jshap/524

Dealing with unexpected Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae serological results

2007· article· en· W2518437562 on OpenAlexaff
André Broes, Guy‐Pierre Martineau, Marcelo Gottschalk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Swine Health and Production · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActinobacillus pleuropneumoniaeSerologyMicrobiologyVirologyBiologySerotypeAntibodyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Serological testing is widely used to monitor swine herds for Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae (APP). Several serological tests are presently used, most often the complement fixation test, the long-chain lipopolysaccharide enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), and the ApxIV ELISA. Serological testing occasionally generates ambiguous results. In such situations, bacterial isolation and polymerase chain reaction testing must be used in order to accurately define the presence or absence of APP. Examples of unexpected serological results and the eventual means of establishing herd APP status are illustrated by means of 10 cases that occurred in European and North American herds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations11
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Swine Health and ProductionSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207