MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Biosecurity Perspectives of Competition Organizers in Ontario, Canada

2024· preprint· en· W4402898789 on OpenAlexaffabout
Gabrielle Turcotte, Terri L. O’Sullivan, Kelsey L. Spence, Charlotte B. Winder, Amy L. Greer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsTrent UniversityUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiosecurityCompetition (biology)Political scienceBusinessEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Biosecurity plays an important role in the prevention and control of infectious disease outbreaks in the equine population. With competition organizers responsible for upholding biosecurity requirements at competitions, it is important to understand the biosecurity landscape at these locations where Ontario horses commonly travel and interact in large group settings. Group settings are one of the risk factors for pathogen exposure. Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop an understanding of the perspectives, challenges and experiences of competition organizers of both sanctioned and unsanctioned events in Ontario, Canada regarding implementing equine biosecurity at competitions. Study Design: This study used a qualitative research approach in order to be able to best gather data regarding the lived experiences of competition organizers. Methods: Semi-structured, individual interviews were conducted virtually with 10 Ontario competition organizers in English disciplines (Eventing, Dressage, Hunter/Jumper). A reflexive thematic analysis using an inductive approach was used to analyze the interview data. Results: Interviews resulted in two major themes: (i) biosecurity at competitions is a balancing act among other important considerations and (ii) there is a disconnect between groups that play key roles in biosecurity at competitions. Main Limitations: The recruitment process also allowed for the possibility of introducing self-selection bias where some of the participants may have an existing interest in biosecurity, which may not be representative of all competition organizers. Individual interviews as well as the design of the interview guide also helped to mitigate the potential for social desirability bias. Conclusions: Biosecurity at equestrian competitions is a multifaceted issue that requires stakeholder input and buy-in to be successful. However, there is an overall willingness from competition organizers to work towards finding a path forward to improving biosecurity and maintaining equine health and welfare at competitions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0230.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.193 · 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
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Disease Management and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→