MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386294016 · doi:10.24908/ohi.v1i2.16450

Home Grown Botanical Acaricides: A One Health Strategy to Prevent Tick-Borne Diseases

2023· article· en· W4386294016 on OpenAlexaffabout
Aaron Iny, Jin Byun, Kelly V. Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueOne Health Innovation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicVector-borne infectious diseases
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcaricideTickHuman healthEnvironmental healthAnimal healthPopulationDiseaseDomesticationBiotechnologyVeterinary medicineBiologyToxicologyGeographyMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prevalence of tick-borne zoonotic disease in Ontario, Canada, has steadily increased over the years. Global climate change has exacerbated the geographical spread, activity level, and population abundance of disease-causing ticks, resulting in the increased circulation of tick-borne disease and significant adverse health impacts on humans, non-human animals, and the environment. Given that existing initiatives demonstrate subpar efficacy and longevity, low accessibility and feasibility, or pose threats to non-human animal and environmental health, it is evident a One Health approach is needed to address this issue. This paper proposes a cost-effective home gardening guide that could be utilized to create botanical acaricides that have been proven to deter ticks. The solution, which employs the process of steam distillation to create essential oils from plants, uses Kingston, Ontario, Canada, as an example and places emphasis on the health and well-being of the environment, wild and domesticated non-human animals, and humans simultaneously.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.284 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOne Health InnovationSame topicVector-borne infectious diseasesFrench-language works237,207