Demographic, Husbandry, and Biosecurity-related Risk Factors for Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Small Poultry Flocks in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is part of a 2-year disease surveillance project conducted to determine the prevalence of poultry and zoonotic pathogens in Ontario’s small flocks. Our objective was to investigate factors associated with the presence of Mycoplasma gallisepticum in Ontario’s small flocks. Flock owners (n = 145) completed a husbandry and biosecurity questionnaire, and the Animal Health Laboratory tested pooled tracheal swab samples from submitted birds for M. gallisepticum using real-time PCR. Our study found that the odds of M. gallisepticum were significantly higher (p < 0.05) in small flocks with layers (compared to no layers), in small flocks with breeding stock (compared to no breeding stock), in small flocks in which birds were housed in a mixed group with different species and/ or types of birds (compared to birds not housed in a mixed group), and in small flocks in which new birds were not isolated (compared to new birds isolated for more than 2 weeks or reared under an all-in-all-out management system). Our results suggest that management strategies, such as isolating new birds, keeping only one species and type of poultry, and preventing the introduction of M. gallisepticum into flocks with long-lived birds, might help to reduce the risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".