Rationalising development of classification systems describing livestock production systems for disease burden analysis within the Global Burden of Animal Diseases programme
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The heterogeneity that exists across the global spectrum of livestock production means that livestock productivity, efficiency, health expenditure and health outcomes vary across production systems. To ensure that burden of disease estimates are specific to the represented livestock population and people reliant upon them, livestock populations need to be systematically classified into different types of production system, reflective of the heterogeneity across production systems. This paper explores the data currently available of livestock production system classifications and animal health through a scoping review as a foundation for the development of a framework that facilitates more specific estimates of livestock disease burdens. A top-down framework to classification is outlined based on a systematic review of existing classification methods and provides a basis for simple grouping of livestock at global scale. The proposed top-down classification framework, which is dominated by commodity focus of production along with intensity of resource use, may have less relevance at the sub-national level in some jurisdictions and will need to be informed and adapted with information on how countries themselves categorize livestock and their production systems. The findings in this study provide a foundation for analysing animal health burdens across a broad level of production systems. The developed framework will fill a major gap in how livestock production and health are currently approached and analysed.
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 | 0.077 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".