Investigating the prevalence of animal bites and stings in Kashan city in 2024
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractA 25-question questionnaire was used to collect information on animal bites and stings in urban and rural areas and then the data were analyzed. Overall, 87% of the 500 individuals surveyed reported having been bitten and stung by various animals. Among the participants, 64.05% (278 individuals) had been bitten and stung only once, while 35.95% (156 individuals) had experienced two or three bites and stings. Among these, 38.5% of the bites and stings were from Culicidae mosquitoes, 33.5% from bees, 6.5% from scorpions, 4% from sandflies, 4% from centipedes, 3.5% from cats, 3% from fleas, 2.5% from dogs, 1.25% from spiders, 1.25% from mice, 1% from snakes, and 1% from bird pecks. Most individuals encountered animals and were bitten and stung in and around their homes, with the highest frequency of bites and stings being from insects such as mosquitoes and bees. Raising awareness about the life cycles of these arthropods, improving environmental conditions, and implementing safe preventive measures can significantly decrease the occurrence and frequency of animal stings and bites.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".