Connecting livestock disease dynamics to human learning and biosecurity decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acceleration of animal disease spread worldwide due to increased animal, feed, and human movement has driven a growing body of epidemiological research as well as a deeper interest in human behavioral studies aimed at understanding their interconnectedness. Biosecurity measures can reduce the risk of infection, but human risk tolerance can hinder biosecurity investments and compliance. Humans may learn from hardship and become more risk averse, but sometimes they instead become more risk tolerant because they forget negative experiences happened in the past or because they come to believe they are immune. We represent the complexity of the hog production system with disease threats, human decision making, and human risk attitude using an agent-based model. Our objective is to explore the role of risk tolerant behaviors and the consequences of delayed biosecurity investments. We set up experiment with Monte Carlo simulations of scenarios designed with different risk tolerance amongst the swine producers and we derive distributions and trends of biosecurity and porcine epidemic diarrhea virus (PEDv) incidence emerging in the system. The output data allowed us to examine interactions between modes of risk tolerance and timings of biosecurity response discussing consequences for disease protection in the production system. The results show that hasty and delayed biosecurity responses or slow shifts toward a biosecure culture do not guarantee control of contamination when the disease has already spread in the system. In an effort to support effective disease prevention, our model results can inform policy making to move toward more resilient and healthy production systems. The modeled dynamics of risk attitude have also the potential to improve communication strategies for nudging and establishing risk averse behaviors thereby equipping the production system in case of foreign disease incursions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".