MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391486112 · doi:10.3168/jds.2023-24033

Graduate Student Literature Review: Perceptions of biosecurity in a Canadian dairy context

2024· article· en· W4391486112 on OpenAlexafffundabout
G.M. Power, D.L. Renaud, Cynthia Miltenburg, Kelsey L. Spence, Briana N. M. Hagen, Charlotte B. Winder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsBiosecurityIncentiveBusinessContext (archaeology)BiotechnologyMedicineGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this review was to outline current implementation of biosecurity, the impact of biosecurity on the industry, and producers' and veterinarians' perceptions of biosecurity, with a focus on the Canadian dairy industry. Biosecurity has an important role in farm safety by reducing the spread of pathogens and contaminants, improving animal health and production, and maintaining human safety. Implementation of biosecurity practices varies among farms and countries. Because Canada's supply management system is different than other countries, different barriers and perceptions of biosecurity may exist. Producers may have negative perspectives on biosecurity, such as it being expensive or time consuming. Producers are motivated or deterred from biosecurity implementation for many reasons, including perceived value, disease risk, and financial incentives or deterrents. In addition, because veterinarians are a trusted source of information, their approaches to discussions on biosecurity implementation are important to understand. Veterinarians and producers appear to have differing opinions on the importance of biosecurity and approaches to discussing biosecurity. Improving biosecurity implementation requires a multifactorial approach, such as individualized education and awareness for producers, further research into efficacy of and barriers to biosecurity, and development of strategies for effective communication between veterinarians and producers.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.024
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.261
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.024
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0110.023
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.315
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Disease Management and EpidemiologyFrench-language works237,207