MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563868199 · doi:10.1637/11460-062716-reg

Small Poultry Flocks in Alberta: Demographics and Practices

2016· article· en· W2563868199 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chunu Mainali, Ilona Houston

Bibliographic record

VenueAvian Diseases · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural Development
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsFlockBiosecurityDemographicsVeterinary medicinePopulationBiologySocioeconomicsGeographyDemographyEnvironmental healthEcologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The distribution, composition, and management characteristics of small "backyard" poultry flocks may have important implications in the spread of both avian diseases and zoonoses of public health concern. Although the prevalence of small poultry flocks has increased in Alberta, Canada, in recent years, there is minimal demographic information available for these populations. To gain initial epidemiologic insight into this growing population and potential areas of risk, a survey was conducted to characterize the sector. Information on flock demographics and bird health, as well as production and biosecurity practices, were gathered and analyzed from 206 surveys, representing respondents from 43 counties. These results revealed great diversity of both owners and flocks, characterized by wide variations in flock sizes and composition. Laying hens were the most commonly reported type of bird (93.4%), followed by ducks and geese (35.3%), turkeys, (33.8%), and broiler chickens (33.1%). Notably, 58.1% of owners reported having more than one type of bird in their flock, with many owners never, or only sometimes, separating flocks based on species or purpose. Personal consumption (81.8%) and sale of eggs (48.2%) were the most frequently cited purposes for owning a flock. Our findings suggest that owners in Alberta are predominantly new to production; most (73.1%) have kept birds for less than 5 yr and 25.6% for less than 1 yr. Flock health parameters revealed inconsistent use of medical interventions, such as vaccinations, treatments, and veterinary consultation. Data on the sourcing, housing, and movement of birds, as well as movement of people and visitors, reveal substantial potential for contact to occur directly and indirectly between flocks and humans. Additionally, basic husbandry and biosecurity practices were found to be inconsistent and often inadequate, highlighting important gaps and opportunities to improve the health of Alberta's small poultry flocks and mitigate risks to public health. These quantitative and qualitative results provide a baseline characterization of the sector and identify risks and challenges that may serve to inform the development and delivery of future study and interventions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.154
Threshold uncertainty score0.310

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAvian DiseasesSame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207