MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037056468 · doi:10.1002/ajp.23161

Is 2020 the year when primatologists should cancel fieldwork?

2020· article· en· W3037056468 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. C. Reid

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Primatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 Research
Canadian institutionsDurham College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)World War IISevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Political science2019-20 coronavirus outbreakEconomic growthHistoryMedicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)VirologyLawEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Year 2020 has brought the greatest global pandemic to hit the world since the end of the First World War. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and the resulting disease named coronavirus disease 2019 has brought the world to its knees both financially and medically. The American Society of Primatologists has postponed their annual meetings from the end of May 2020 until the end of September 2020, while the International Primatological Society have postponed their biennial congress from August 2020 to August 2021, which has also resulted in their 2022 meetings in Malaysia being pushed back until 2023. Here, I explore the potential dangers of pursuing any primate fieldwork during this pandemic on our study species, their ecosystems, and local peoples. I believe that the risk of bringing this virus into our study ecosystems is too great and that primatologists should cancel all field research until the pandemic ends or a vaccine/reliable treatment is widely available. This is the year we all must become One Health practitioners!

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.049
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.049
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.007
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0190.020
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.025

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations21
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of PrimatologySame topicSARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 ResearchFrench-language works237,207