Exploring the operational logistics of implementing isolation protocols at equestrian facilities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Horses may travel for a variety of reasons, leading to potential exposure to pathogens. Typically, these movements are bidirectional with horses returning to their home facility, therefore also risking pathogen exposure to resident horses at home facilities. The Canadian National Farm and Facility Level Biosecurity Standard for the Equine Sector was designed to outline best practices for managing biosecurity at equestrian facilities, however, there is a gap between the implementation of these recommendations and the day-to-day operations of equestrian facilities. This study aimed to explore the challenges and opportunities for implementing biosecurity protocols at equestrian facilities through an isolation activity for a mock pathogen. This study was performed at seven Ontario equestrian facilities and used a fluorescent spray as a proxy for a pathogen along with the subsequent implementation of biosecurity measures. Pre- and post-study interviews were also conducted with participants to gain additional insight into the feasibility of instituting an isolation protocol. Facility-level, qualitative, descriptive summaries and a survival analysis were used to outline some of the discovered challenges including weather, staff training, time constraints, and compliance. There were also horse-level considerations such as turnout procedures and stabling requirements. Results indicated the potential for a feasible subset of all biosecurity practices to effectively reduce risk of non-airborne transmission, counteracting the perception that biosecurity is effective only when performed completely and without exception. This could lead to additional incorporation of biosecurity measures in equestrian facilities' daily operations to support continued maintenance of health and welfare in the equine population.
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 | 0.018 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".