Surveillance of <i>Babesia odocoilei</i> in wild and farmed cervid populations of Saskatchewan, Canada.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: could be detected from farmed and wild cervid diagnostic submissions prior to its first reported occurrence in Saskatchewan. Procedure: was used to survey 85 fresh-frozen samples and 112 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded samples from Saskatchewan cervids submitted for necropsy between 2000 and 2014. Results: in 1/84 white-tailed deer, 1/41 moose, 0/37 mule deer, and 1/35 elk. The positive elk was from a farmed herd, but the remaining 2 positive samples were from wild cervids. The positive moose sample was the earliest confirmed infection, dating back to 2008. Therefore, 1.5% of the study population tested positive over the 14-year period. Conclusion: in the study population. Clinical relevance: Babesiosis should be included as a differential diagnosis for disease in susceptible cervids when clinical signs are compatible; however, a lack of suggestive clinical signs or necropsy findings does not preclude infection. Thus, monitoring prevalence of the disease within Saskatchewan (and Canada) will likely require targeted surveillance.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".