Global Burden of Animal Diseases: a novel approach to understanding and managing disease in livestock and aquaculture
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Investments in animal health and Veterinary Services can have a measurable impact on the health of people and the environment. These investments require a baseline metric that describes the burden of animal health and welfare in order to justify and prioritise resource allocation and from which to measure the impact of interventions. This paper is part of a process of scientific enquiry in which problems are identified and solutions sought in an inclusive way. It poses the broad question: what should a system to measure the animal disease burden on society look like and what value would it add? Moreover, it aims to do this in such a way as to be accessible by a wide audience, who are encouraged to engage in this debate. Given that farmed animals, including those raised by poor smallholders, are an economic entity, this system should be based on economic principles. These poor farmers are negatively impacted by disparities in animal health technology, which can be addressed through a mixture of supply-led and demand-driven interventions, reinforcing the relevance of targeted financial support from government and non-governmental organisations. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) Programme will glean existing data to measure animal health losses within carefully characterised production systems. Consistent and transparent attribution of animal health losses will enable meaningful comparisons of the animal disease burden to be made between diseases, production systems and countries, and will show how it is apportioned by people's socio-economic status and gender. The GBADs Programme will produce a cloud-based knowledge engine and data portal, through which users will access burden metrics and associated visualisations, support for decisionmaking in the form of future animal health scenarios, and the outputs of wider economic modelling. The vision of GBADs, strengthening the food system for the benefit of society and the environment, is an example of One Health thinking in action.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".