MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3157621562 · doi:10.1111/zph.12835

The ecological niche of reported rabies cases in Canada is similar to Alaska

2021· article· en· W3157621562 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Falk Huettmann, Karsten Hueffer

Bibliographic record

VenueZoonoses and Public Health · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRabiesGeographyLandscape epidemiologyEcologyNicheEnvironmental niche modellingCircumpolar starEcological nicheDistribution (mathematics)Scale (ratio)Environmental resource managementHabitatLandscape ecologyBiologyCartographyEnvironmental scienceVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The ecology of rabies in the circumpolar North is still not well understood. We use machine learning, a geographic information system and data explicit in time and space obtained for reported rabies cases and predictors in Canada to develop an ecological niche model for the distribution of reported rabies cases in the American north (Alaska and Canada). The ecological niche model based on reported rabies cases in Canada predicted reported rabies cases in Alaska, suggesting a rather robust inference and even similar drivers on a continental scale. As found in Alaska, proximity to human infrastructure-specifically along the coast-was a strong predictor in the detection of rabies cases in Canada. Also, this finding highlights the need for a more systematic landscape sampling for rabies infection model predictions to better understand and tackle the ecology of this important zoonotic disease on a landscape scale at some distance from human infrastructure in wilderness areas.

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 score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.162

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZoonoses and Public HealthSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207