Biosecurity Perspectives of Equestrian Facility Managers in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Movement is a contributing factor to the risk of exposure to infectious disease. A primary reason for equine travel in Ontario, Canada is for equestrian competitions. The Canadian National Farm and Facility Level Biosecurity Standard for the Equine Sector provides guidance for equestrian facilities regarding strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to pathogens at competitions and upon return. To be further investigated are the perceptions of these recommendations by facility managers and their degree of implementation. Objectives: The objective of this study was to determine the biosecurity perspectives of equestrian facility managers to be able to identify challenges and opportunities regarding equestrian facility-level biosecurity. Study Design: This study used a qualitative approach to gather in-depth data on the experiences of equestrian facility managers Methods: Individual, semi-structured interviews were conducted in-person with 10 Ontario equestrian facility managers. A template analysis using deductive coding was used to determine themes. Results: The main themes identified were: (i) facility managers feel ultimately primarily responsible for biosecurity choices, but also feel that the overall responsibility should be shared; and (ii) facility managers understand biosecurity in theory but face challenges putting it into practice. Main Limitations: This study asked for voluntary participation, leading to the potential for self-selection bias with participants having a pre-existing interest in biosecurity. Participants residing in specific geographic radius of Toronto, Ontario could also lead to possible similarities between facilities. The small sample size also may result in nonresponse bias. These biases could lead to the sample population not being representative of the general population Conclusions: Results of this study indicate the need for additional focus on overcoming barriers to implementation and bridging the gap between stakeholder groups. This would allow for improvements in equine biosecurity at both home facilities and competitions, positively impacting overall equine health and welfare
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".