A framework for handling uncertainty in a large-scale programme estimating the Global Burden of Animal Diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Livestock provide nutritional and socio-economic security for marginalized populations in low and middle-income countries. Poorly-informed decisions impact livestock husbandry outcomes, leading to poverty from livestock disease, with repercussions on human health and well-being. The Global Burden of Animal Diseases (GBADs) programme is working to understand the impacts of livestock disease upon human livelihoods and livestock health and welfare. This information can then be used by policy makers operating regionally, nationally and making global decisions. The burden of animal disease crosses many scales and estimating it is a complex task, with extensive requirements for data and subsequent data synthesis. Some of the information that livestock decision-makers require is represented by quantitative estimates derived from field data and models. Model outputs contain uncertainty, arising from many sources such as data quality and availability, or the user's understanding of models and production systems. Uncertainty in estimates needs to be recognized, accommodated, and accurately reported. This enables robust understanding of synthesized estimates, and associated uncertainty, providing rigor around values that will inform livestock management decision-making. Approaches to handling uncertainty in models and their outputs receive scant attention in animal health economics literature; indeed, uncertainty is sometimes perceived as an analytical weakness. However, knowledge of uncertainty is as important as generating point estimates. Motivated by the context of GBADs, this paper describes an analytical framework for handling uncertainty, emphasizing uncertainty management, and reporting to stakeholders and policy makers. This framework describes a hierarchy of evidence, guiding movement from worst to best-case sources of information, and suggests a stepwise approach to handling uncertainty in estimating the global burden of animal disease. The framework describes the following pillars: background preparation; models as simple as possible but no simpler; assumptions documented; data source quality ranked; commitment to moving up the evidence hierarchy; documentation and justification of modelling approaches, data, data flows and sources of modelling uncertainty; uncertainty and sensitivity analysis on model outputs; documentation and justification of approaches to handling uncertainty; an iterative, up-to-date process of modelling; accounting for accuracy of model inputs; communication of confidence in model outputs; and peer-review.
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 | 0.104 | 0.134 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".