MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3216666309 · doi:10.3390/vetsci8120299

Analyses of Contact Networks of Community Dogs on a University Campus in Nakhon Pathom, Thailand

2021· article· en· W3216666309 on OpenAlexafffund
Tipsarp Kittisiam, Waraphon Phimpraphai, Suwicha Kasemsuwan, Krishna K. Thakur

Bibliographic record

VenueVeterinary Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersFaculty of Veterinary Medicine, Kasetsart UniversityGlobal Affairs Canada
KeywordsRoamingRabiesObservational studyGeographyComputer scienceComputer networkMedicineVirologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free-roaming dogs have been identified as an important reservoir of rabies in many countries including Thailand. There is a need for novel insights to improve current rabies control strategies in these countries. Network analysis is commonly used to study the interactions between individuals or organizations and has been applied in preventive veterinary medicine. However, contact networks of domestic free-roaming dogs are mostly unexplored. The objective of this study was to explore the contact network of free-roaming dogs residing on a university campus. Three one-mode networks were created using co-appearances of dogs as edges. A two-mode network was created by associating the dog with the pre-defined area it was seen in. The average number of contacts a dog had was 6.74. The normalized degree for the weekend network was significantly higher compared to the weekday network. All one-mode networks displayed small-world network characteristics. Most dogs were observed in only one area. The average number of dogs which shared an area was 8.67. In this study, we demonstrated the potential of observational methods to create networks of contacts. The network information acquired can be further used in network modeling and designing targeted disease control programs.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.276

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVeterinary SciencesSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207