MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4288696376 · doi:10.1038/s41598-022-15600-0

Spatial evaluation of animal health care accessibility and veterinary shortage in France

2022· article· en· W4288696376 on OpenAlexaff
Mehdi Berrada, Youba Ndiaye, Didier Raboisson, Guillaume Lhermie

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEconomic shortageAnimal healthVeterinary medicineMEDLINEGeographyMedicineData scienceComputer scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The decrease in the supply of veterinary healthcare in France adversely affects health of food-producing animals. In a One Health perspective, the health of people, animals and their shared environment are interconnected, and adequate supply of veterinary healthcare is required to ensure public health. Prevention of outbreaks and zoonotic diseases that may impact public health mobilizes a set of public policies, including strengthening veterinary workforce. These policies should be informed by quantification of animal health care accessibility, yet this has not been well characterized. The objective was to quantify the accessibility to veterinary healthcare for cattle, swine, and poultry sectors in France. A Two-Step Floating Catchment Area (2SFCA) approach was used to measure the level of accessibility to veterinary clinics. In the cattle sector, the 2SFCA score indicated relatively high accessibility in the north and south of France, but insufficient accessibility elsewhere. In the swine sector, there was high accessibility in the north east and in north of France, medium accessibility in the south west, and insufficient accessibility elsewhere. Finally, in the poultry sector, all regions had insufficient accessibility. Sensitivity analysis examining the effects of a change in spatial accessibility according to various travel time showed that the optimal threshold to compute 2SFCA score in cattle, swine and poultry sectors were respectively, 45, 60 and 60 min. According to a definition of "underserved area" derived from an official decree and the optimal thresholds to compute 2SFCA, the cattle, swine and poultry sector have on average 75.3, 89.9 and 98.3% underserved area, respectively. We provided evidence that the supply of animal health care was not sufficient and we proposed recommendations on how to assess animal health care accessibility, enabling modelling and visualization of the effects of potential public policies aimed at reducing veterinary shortages.

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)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.522
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific ReportsSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207