MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2580942464

Investigating coxiella burnetii at the livestock - wildlife interface

2016· dissertation· en· W2580942464 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ariel Porty

Bibliographic record

VenueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University) · 2016
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, Health
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoxiella burnetiiLivestockWildlifeQ feverGeographyBiologyEcologyVirology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intent of this project was to better understand the role of wildlife in the epidemiology of the zoonotic bacterium, Coxiella burnetii, at the livestock-wildlife interface. In Chapter 1, I compared the prevalence of C. burnetii DNA in dairy goats, other domestic animals, and wildlife on goat farms and adjacent natural areas. In Chapter 2, I compared the prevalence of C. burnetii DNA in different sample types from goats and wildlife, and assessed the level of agreement among the different samples. From April to August 2014, genital, fecal and milk samples were collected from goats on 16 Ontario dairy goat farms. Fecal and genital samples were also collected from other resident animals (cats, chickens, cows, dogs, horses, pigs), and from wildlife (deer mice, house mice, opossums, raccoons, red-backed voles, red squirrels and skunks) live-trapped on farms and from 14 adjacent natural areas. Coxiella burnetii was detected by PCR in samples from 89.2% (404/453) of goats, 68.8% (33/48) of other farm animals, 64.7% (44/68) of wild animals sampled on farms, and 58.1% (165/284) of wild animals sampled in natural areas. Coxiella burnetii was detected at all study sites and the prevalence in wildlife was similar on farms and adjacent natural areas, independent of site distances. These findings provide evidence to support the hypothesis that wildlife are able to maintain C. burnetii independent of livestock and may act as possible maintenance or reservoir hosts of C. burnetii at the livestock-wildlife interface. I determined that genital and fecal swab samples, which yielded the highest proportion positives, were optimal sample types to use for the detection of C. burnetii DNA in deer mice, eastern chipmunks, and raccoons. Genital swab, fecal swab and fecal material sample types were all suitable for detecting C. burnetii DNA in house mice and red squirrels. On the other hand, genital swab samples were optimal for detecting C. burnetii DNA in dairy goats and were significantly more likely to be positive for C. burnetii DNA than the other sample types. Additional studies need to be conducted to further elucidate the epidemiology of C. burnetii at the livestock-wildlife interface in southern Ontario and to confirm the optimal sample types to use for C. burnetii detection in wildlife and dairy goats.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.201 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLu Zone Ul (Laurentian University)Same topicRabbits: Nutrition, Reproduction, HealthFrench-language works237,207