Survey of emergency response plans for managing the movement of cattle during a foot-and-mouth disease outbreak in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To collect information from US state animal health officials (SAHOs) and beef feedlot managers and veterinarians regarding emergency response plans for movement of cattle in the event of a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in North America. SAMPLE: 36 SAHOs, 26 feedlot veterinarians, and 7 feedlot managers. PROCEDURES: 3 versions of an electronic questionnaire were created and distributed to SAHOs and US feedlot veterinarians and managers to gather information about planned or expected responses to an FMD outbreak that originated at 1 of 3 geographic locations (Mexico or Canada, a bordering state, or a nonbordering state). Descriptive data were reported. RESULTS: All respondents recognized that the risk of FMD transmission to livestock in their area or care increased as the outbreak got closer in proximity to their location. Most SAHOs indicated that they would immediately close their state's borders to livestock movement at the beginning of an FMD outbreak, particularly if the disease was identified in a bordering state. During an extended FMD outbreak, 29 of 36 (80.6%) SAHOs reported they would resume interstate movement of cattle under some conditions, including enhanced permitting, whereas feedlot veterinarians and managers commonly reported they would be willing to receive cattle from states where no FMD-infected animals were identified, regardless of permit requirements. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Information gained from this survey can be used to inform disease modeling and preparedness efforts to facilitate business continuity of US beef feedlots in the event of an FMD outbreak in North America.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".