Untersuchungen zum Campylobacter-Eintrag in Mastgeflügelherden auf ausgewählten Betrieben in der Schweiz.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On 15 farms, broiler flocks, other farm animals, and the environment were examined during consecutive rearing periods for Campylobacter (C.). Of the 5154 samples, 311 (6%) from 14 farms were Campylobacter positive by culture. Amongst them, 228 tested positive for C. jejuni and 92 for C. coli. Positive samples originated from broilers, the broiler houses, cattle, pigs, bantams, laying hens, a horse, and a mouse. Genotyping using flagellin gene typing (flaA-RFLP), macrorestriction profiling with PFGE, and AFLP analysis allowed the following conclusions: (1) On eight farms, matching genotypes were isolated from broiler flocks and other farm animals (cattle, pigs, or laying hens); (2) indications of persistent contamination of the broiler house were evident on four farms where matching genotypes were detected in consecutive broiler flocks, but not concurrently in other samples; (3) especially on farms with extensive outdoor flocks, multiple genotypes were found within a rearing period; (4) some genotypes proofed to be identical across different farms. These results emphasize the importance of other farm animals on poultry farms as reservoirs and risk factors for broiler flock colonization with Campylobacter and retrieve the role of personnel moving between different farm areas as potential vectors. However, certain other niches or vectors may not be excluded on some farms.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".