MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202470356 · doi:10.3390/antibiotics10101209

Antibiotic Resistance: From Pig to Meat

2021· review· en· W3202470356 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAntibiotics · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicAquaculture disease management and microbiota
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntibiotic resistanceAntibioticsBusinessMicrobiomeBiotechnologyResistance (ecology)BiosafetyBiologyMicrobiologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pork meat is in high demand worldwide and this is expected to increase. Pork is often raised in intensive conditions, which is conducive to the spread of infectious diseases. Vaccines, antibiotics, and other biosafety measures help mitigate the impact of infectious diseases. However, bacterial strains resistant to antibiotics are more and more frequently found in pig farms, animals, and the environment. It is now recognized that a holistic perspective is needed to sustainably fight antibiotic resistance, and that an integrated One Health approach is essential. With this in mind, this review tackles antibiotic resistance throughout the pork raising process, including their microbiome; many factors of their environment (agricultural workers, farms, rivers, etc.); and an overview of the impact of antibiotic resistance on pork meat, which is the end product available to consumers. Antibiotic resistance, while a natural process, is a public health concern. If we react, and act, collectively, it is expected to be, at least partially, reversible with judicious antibiotic usage and the development of innovative strategies and tools to foster animal health.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.010

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.273 · 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