MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415621378 · doi:10.1093/biosci/biaf154

Broadening disease surveillance to include wild dolphins and killer whales: novel components of One Health

2025· article· en· W4415621378 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Ashe, Joseph K. Gaydos, Kimberly A. Nielsen, Stephen Raverty, Laurel Yruretagoyena, Rob Williams

Bibliographic record

VenueBioScience · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicMarine animal studies overview
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiodiversityEndangered speciesCritically endangeredAbundance (ecology)EcosystemEcosystem healthDiseaseAgricultureDisease surveillance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract We describe a minimally invasive pilot study to characterize the microbiota of exhaled breath from wild Pacific white-sided dolphins. Samples were collected in a site that is far from any agriculture facilities or large human settlements but home to a high concentration of open-net aquaculture facilities for Atlantic salmon. This case study in pathogen surveillance in wild dolphins reveals a wide diversity of pathogens, including several with the potential to cross species and infect critically endangered killer whales, or humans. Common species are often neglected in funding strategies that prioritize species at imminent risk of extinction, but they may be a top priority for disease surveillance. One important cobenefit of integrating biodiversity monitoring in a One Health framework may be to support monitoring of both abundance and zoonotic potential of common species whose biomass alone makes them key players in ecosystem function.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioScienceSame topicMarine animal studies overviewFrench-language works237,207