MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3128068445

Survey of the equine broodmare industry, abortion, and equine herpesvirus-1 vaccination in Ontario.

2021· article· en· W3128068445 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carina J. Cooper, Luis G. Arroyo, David L. Pearl, Joanne Hewson, Brandon N. Lillie

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Equine Medical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbortionHerdVaccinationOddsLogistic regressionMedicineOdds ratioVeterinary medicineDemographyEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePregnancyBiologyImmunologyInternal medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A survey of Ontario horse breeders was conducted in 2016 and retrospectively asked farm-level management questions regarding herd sizes, vaccination, respiratory disease, and abortion over the years 2014 to 2015. A total of 88 farm owners completed the survey, reporting 857 broodmares. Using logistic regression modelling, management influences on vaccine use, and the reporting of respiratory disease or abortion was investigated. Having veterinary records and the reasons for breeding were significantly associated with the odds of an abortion even after controlling for broodmare herd size. The odds of having respiratory illness on the farm were significantly greater if the farm was the primary source of income even after controlling for farm size. Respondents with primary breeding operations were more likely to utilize vaccines against equine herpesvirus 1 (EHV-1), independent of herd size. Veterinarians were more involved with abortions than with respiratory disease, leaving a significant gap in the opportunities for client education.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.167
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicVeterinary Equine Medical ResearchFrench-language works237,207