MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281562693 · doi:10.3390/insects13060492

All for One Health and One Health for All: Considerations for Successful Citizen Science Projects Conducting Vector Surveillance from Animal Hosts

2022· review· en· W4281562693 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Karen C. Poh, Jesse R. Evans, Michael J. Skvarla, Erika T. Machtinger

Bibliographic record

VenueInsects · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVector (molecular biology)Citizen scienceBiologyUrbanizationPublic healthOne HealthSpillover effectStakeholderDisease surveillanceHost (biology)Animal healthEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceEcologyPublic relations

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many vector-borne diseases that affect humans are zoonotic, often involving some animal host amplifying the pathogen and infecting an arthropod vector, followed by pathogen spillover into the human population via the bite of the infected vector. As urbanization, globalization, travel, and trade continue to increase, so does the risk posed by vector-borne diseases and spillover events. With the introduction of new vectors and potential pathogens as well as range expansions of native vectors, it is vital to conduct vector and vector-borne disease surveillance. Traditional surveillance methods can be time-consuming and labor-intensive, especially when surveillance involves sampling from animals. In order to monitor for potential vector-borne disease threats, researchers have turned to the public to help with data collection. To address vector-borne disease and animal conservation needs, we conducted a literature review of studies from the United States and Canada utilizing citizen science efforts to collect arthropods of public health and veterinary interest from animals. We identified common stakeholder groups, the types of surveillance that are common with each group, and the literature gaps on understudied vectors and populations. From this review, we synthesized considerations for future research projects involving citizen scientist collection of arthropods that affect humans and animals.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.999
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.284
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.144 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInsectsSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207