<i>Salmonella</i> contamination in a network of 10 pig farms interconnected within the same cooperative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To evaluate whether pig farms interconnected within the same cooperative share similar Salmonella contamination patterns. Setting Ten finishing pig farms within a 100 km radius of a common slaughterhouse were selected. Their inclusion was based on their association to the same cooperative and the sharing of common resources: piglets, feed, swine transporters, slaughterhouse, technicians and veterinarians. Procedure Each farm was visited three times over a 10‐month period. Pig faeces, the barn front door handle, the feed pipeline, mobile objects (shovel, balance and pig board), the landing stage, the concrete slab of the feed bins, the tire tracks left on the pathways by the animal feed truck, the pig delivery truck and the carcase knacker truck and the mudguards and cabin carpets of the veterinarian and technician vehicles on their arrival at the farm were all analysed for the presence of Salmonella . Results All farms were not equally contaminated with Salmonella . Whereas some farms yielded up to 12 Salmonella isolates, other farms were Salmonella free. Some locations, most notably the landing stage, were more contaminated than others. Salmonella contamination was dynamic in time. Some contaminations seen on farms, on specific locations on the first visit, had disappeared on the second and third visits, but new contaminations were detected on different locations. Conclusions Contamination with Salmonella was not disseminated through the network of the 10 pig farms interconnected within the same cooperative but was rather most often restricted in time to specific locations on specific 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".