Informatics progress of the Global Burden of Animal Diseases programme towards data for One Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme will provide data-driven evidence that policy-makers can use to evaluate options, inform decisions, and measure the success of animal health and welfare interventions. The GBADs' Informatics team is developing a transparent process for identifying, analysing, visualising and sharing data to calculate livestock disease burdens and drive models and dashboards. These data can be combined with data on other global burdens (human health, crop loss, foodborne diseases) to provide a comprehensive range of information on One Health, required to address such issues as antimicrobial resistance and climate change. The programme began by gathering open data from international organisations (which are undergoing their own digital transformations). Efforts to achieve an accurate estimate of livestock numbers revealed problems in finding, accessing and reconciling data from different sources over time. Ontologies and graph databases are being developed to bridge data silos and improve the findability and interoperability of data. Dashboards, data stories, a documentation website and a Data Governance Handbook explain GBADs data, now available through an application programming interface. Sharing data quality assessments builds trust in such data, encouraging their application to livestock and One Health issues. Animal welfare data present a particular challenge, as much of this information is held privately and discussions continue regarding which data are the most relevant. Accurate livestock numbers are an essential input for calculating biomass, which subsequently feeds into calculations of antimicrobial use and climate change. The GBADs data are also essential to at least eight of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
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 | 0.051 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.026 | 0.012 |
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".