Attitudes towards antimicrobial use and factors associated with antimicrobial use in western Canadian cow-calf herds.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One hundred cow-calf producers in western Canada were surveyed to determine their perceptions regarding antimicrobial use (AMU) and how these perceptions and other herd management factors were associated with AMU. Veterinarians were the most important source of AMU information. Half of the producers considered antimicrobial resistance (AMR) when choosing antimicrobials, while 24% considered the influence of AMU on AMR in human health. Younger producers < 30 y were most likely to consider AMR when choosing antimicrobials. Injectable products were used for disease prevention in 17% of herds; 5% used medically important antimicrobials in feed and 6% in water. Use of injectable antimicrobials of very high importance to human health was reported in 34% of herds. Producers with higher calf mortality were more likely to report AMU in feed or water. The use of Health Canada Category I antimicrobials was most common when calves were retained after weaning.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".