Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rabies prevention and control programs in Canada have proven highly successful in past decades and have significantly reduced both terrestrial animal and human rabies cases.Successful management and prevention of rabies to date have not, however, eliminated our need for ongoing rabies prevention and control programs.This issue of the Canadian Communicable Disease Report (CCDR) provides an overview of recent and emerging rabies trends and challenges in Canada and examines the rationale to maintain our rabies programs and further supplement them with new and innovative approaches.The articles in this issue cover a broad range of topics including the preparation for, and response to, renewed incursions of the raccoon rabies variant of the virus, how to address the problem posed by the movement of dogs from northern to southern Canada and how the Canadian Rabies Management Plan is being revised and updated to respond to these issues.Rabies in Canada is changing, but it is not disappearing.The same needs to be said of our rabies prevention and control policies and programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".