MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison of the dynamic networks of four equine boarding and training facilities

2018· article· en· W2902231510 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rachael M. Milwid, Terri L. O’Sullivan, Zvonimir Poljak, Marek Laskowski, Amy L. Greer

Bibliographic record

VenuePreventive Veterinary Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Guelph
FundersCanada Research ChairsOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsCentralityNode (physics)Mixing patternsPopulationComputer scienceStatisticsMixing (physics)MathematicsMedicineEngineeringEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Contact networks can be analyzed to assess the potential for disease spread throughout the network. The lack of Canadian facility-level equine contact data makes the characterization of the equine contact structure difficult. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to use empirical contact data to characterize and compare equine network characteristics between equine facilities in Ontario. Contact pattern data from 4 equine facilities were collected using radio-frequency identification tags. The collected data were used to form 7 static contact networks (1 for each study day) for each facility. The assumption of homogenous mixing, where each individual in a population has an equal probability of coming in contact, was assessed for each network, since homogenous mixing is often used to describe mixing patterns in disease transmission models. At the facility level, neither the day-long static networks, nor a combined, week-long network were representative of homogenous mixing. The Jaccard Similarity Index indicated that 11-62% of the contacts were repeated throughout the study period. A network generated with survey-based data enabled the prediction of 8.7-79.6% of the contacts that were recorded with the RFID tags. With respect to the node centrality, the normalized node degree ranged from 0.0 to 0.96, with a mean of 0.31. The node strength ranged from 0 to 1 with a mean of 0.38. For both the node degree and node strength, a node's centrality score relative to the other nodes' centrality scores tended to be consistent throughout the study week. A significant (p < 0.05), weak positive correlation existed between the node degree and strength (0.41 < r < 0.54). The normalized betweenness centrality ranged from 0.00 to 1.00, with a mean of 0.11. Lastly, an exponential random graph model was used to quantify the relationship between the distance between the horses' stalls and edge formation. The distance parameter was not significant for all of the facilities. To conclude, the non-homogenous nature of the contact patterns, coupled with the large range of the centrality measures indicate the importance of using empirical data to understand processes such as disease spread potential within equine populations. Although the collection of a full set of data is optimal, the study results suggest an ability to infer contact networks using observational data in situations where little-to-no data exist. This study serves as a starting point for the characterization of equine contact networks in Ontario.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.718
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.148
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreventive Veterinary MedicineSame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207