MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949961623 · doi:10.3390/v11060556

Modelling Ranavirus Transmission in Populations of Common Frogs (Rana temporaria) in the United Kingdom

2019· article· en· W2949961623 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Amanda L. J. Duffus, Trenton W. J. Garner, Richard A. Nichols, Joshua P. Standridge, Julia E. Earl

Bibliographic record

VenueViruses · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral Infections and Vectors
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKQueen Mary University of London
KeywordsRanavirusAmphibianContext (archaeology)Transmission (telecommunications)BiologyRanaDiseasePopulationZoologyEcologyEvolutionary biologyVirologyDemographyMedicinePathologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) in the United Kingdom in the late 1980s and early 1990s, causing severe disease and declines in the populations of these animals. Herein, we explored the transmission dynamics of the ranavirus(es) present in common frog populations, in the context of a simple susceptible-infected (SI) model, using parameters derived from the literature. We explored the effects of disease-induced population decline on the dynamics of the ranavirus. We then extended the model to consider the infection dynamics in populations exposed to both ulcerative and hemorrhagic forms of the ranaviral disease. The preliminary investigation indicated the important interactions between the forms. When the ulcerative form was present in a population and the hemorrhagic form was later introduced, the hemorrhagic form of the disease needed to be highly contagious, to persist. We highlighted the areas where further research and experimental evidence is needed and hope that these models would act as a guide for further research into the amphibian disease dynamics.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.173
Threshold uncertainty score0.343

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.188
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations13
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVirusesSame topicViral Infections and VectorsFrench-language works237,207