MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2873535193 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2018.00154

Factors Influencing Mitigation of Risk of Waterborne Disease in Vietnam Among Small Scale Integrated Livestock Farmers

2018· article· en· W2873535193 on OpenAlexafffund
David C. Hall, Quynh Lê

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicZoonotic diseases and public health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of CalgaryInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsLivestockScale (ratio)Waterborne diseasesEnvironmental healthBusinessGeographyEnvironmental protectionBiologyEcologyMedicineWater quality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integrated livestock, crops, and fish (VAC) model of integrated small scale agriculture has been important to economic and ecological sustainability in Vietnam for many centuries. Recently, emerging waterborne diseases including avian influenza as well as the potential for zoonotic disease arising from small scale farms have jeopardized the VAC model. In order to promote mitigation of the risk of waterborne and other diseases in the VAC system, there needs to be recognition of the significant predictors of such behaviour, particularly with respect to water sources including well and rain water. We report primarily quantitative results of research generated from 300 farms in each of North and South Vietnam that indicate the small scale farmers who are more likely to engage in mitigation of waterborne disease are those who raise pigs, perceive themselves to be more at risk of HPAI infection from well water, report they are good livestock managers, value the advice of health care workers, and where a female household member is the decision maker for family health. These results bear importance to water and health policy formulators in rural Vietnam.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicZoonotic diseases and public healthFrench-language works237,207