Broiler chicken carcasses and their associated abattoirs as a source of enterotoxigenic <em>Clostridium perfringens</em>: Prevalence and critical steps for contamination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clostridium perfringens ranks among the three most frequent bacterial pathogens causing human foodborne diseases in Canada, and poultry meat products are identified as a source of infection for humans. The objective of the current study was to estimate the proportion of broiler chicken flocks, carcasses and various environmental samples from critical locations of the slaughter plant positive for the presence of C. perfringens enterotoxin encoding gene (cpe). From the 16 visits conducted, 25% of the 79 flocks sampled, 10% of the 379 carcasses sampled and 5% of the 217 environmental samples collected were found positive for cpe. The proportion of cpe-positive carcasses was statistically different between surveyed plants, with 17.0% for one abattoir and 2.2% for the other. For the most contaminated plant, cpe-positive carcasses were identified at each step of the processing line, with prevalence varying between 10.0% and 25.0%, whereas this prevalence varied between 0% and 25.0% for the environmental surfaces sampled. Based on the results obtained, enterotoxigenic C. perfringens strains could potentially represent a risk for the consumer.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".