MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4254776644 · doi:10.1016/j.fawpar.2019.e00039

International Commission on Trichinellosis: Recommendations on pre-harvest control of Trichinella in food animals

2019· review· en· W4254776644 on OpenAlexafffund
H. Ray Gamble, Lis Alban, Dolores E. Hill, Dave Pyburn, Brad Scandrett

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Waterborne Parasitology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicParasitic Diseases Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection Agency
FundersBundesinstitut für RisikobewertungCanadian Food Inspection AgencyU.S. Department of Agriculture
KeywordsTrichinellaTrichinosisFood safetyVeterinary medicineCommissionTrichinella spiralisBiologyHelminthsZoologyFood scienceMedicinePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transmission of Trichinella to domestic livestock, notably pigs, is limited to certain risk factors including feeding of raw meat-containing waste products or animal carcasses and exposure to infected rodents and wildlife. Prevention of infection in food animals is dependent on eliminating risk of exposure to these potential sources of Trichinella. By implementing conditions of controlled management, pig herds can be considered to pose a negligible risk for Trichinella , and groups of herds which follow these same conditions can be considered to be a compartment with negligible risk for Trichinella . Pork from pigs originating from a negligible risk herd or compartment would not require further testing or processing to protect consumers from this parasite. Verifying the status of pigs from a controlled management negligible risk herd or compartment can be accomplished by a program of regular audits or by implementing surveillance testing of a statistical sample of pigs from the herd or compartment.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations20
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Waterborne ParasitologySame topicParasitic Diseases Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207