MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884297893 · doi:10.14745/ccdr.v40i12a01

Measles surveillance in Canada: Trends for 2013

2014· article· en· W2884297893 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
A Shane, Joanne Hiebert, Lindsey Sherrard, H Deehan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanada Communicable Disease Report · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVirology and Viral Diseases
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsMeaslesVirologyGeographyEnvironmental healthMedicineVaccination

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this report is to describe measles activity in Canada during 2013, in order to support the documentation and maintenance of measles elimination status. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of measles counts and incidence by age group, immunization history, hospitalization and province/territory, as well as a summary of 2013 outbreaks, was conducted using enhanced measles data captured through the Canadian Measles and Rubella Surveillance System. Genotype information and phylogenetic analysis for 2013 were summarized. RESULTS: In 2013, 83 confirmed measles cases were reported in seven provinces/territories for an incidence rate of 2.4 per 1,000,000 population. Incidence was highest in the youngest age groups (< 1 year, 1 to 4 years). Burden of disease was highest in the youngest age groups and children 10 to 14 years. Three-quarters of cases had been inadequately immunized, and 10% were hospitalized. There were nine measles outbreaks reported in 2013, one of which consisted of 42 cases in a non-immunizing community in Alberta. DISCUSSION: 2013 saw the fifth highest number of reported measles cases since 1998. While we continue to face challenges related to importation and heterogeneous immunization coverage, in 2013 Canada met or partially met all four criteria outlined by the Pan American Health Organization for measles elimination.

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)0.000
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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanada Communicable Disease ReportSame topicVirology and Viral DiseasesFrench-language works237,207