MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416115010 · doi:10.1139/facets-2025-0202

Elimination of Arctic fox variant rabies from southern Ontario, Canada

2025· article· en· W4416115010 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Tore Buchanan, Lucy Brown, Christine Fehlner‐Gardiner, Sarah Hagey, Ayden McGuire Sherritt, Larissa Nituch, Lisa Pollock

Bibliographic record

VenueFACETS · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicRabies epidemiology and control
Canadian institutionsCanadian Food Inspection AgencyMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRabiesEpizooticVulpesWildlifeRabies virusArctic foxArcticRabies vaccine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The province of Ontario, Canada, experienced a major epizootic of rabies due to Arctic fox virus variant (AFVV) rabies beginning in northern Ontario in 1954. The disease quickly spread south in red fox ( Vulpes vulpes) populations and by 1958 was firmly established across southern Ontario. Between 1958 and the start of wildlife rabies control efforts in 1989, Ontario reported 49 125 AFVV rabies cases, averaging 1535 per year. Comprehensive research and subsequent campaigns to immunize wildlife using baits containing an oral rabies vaccine led to the elimination of AFVV from southeastern and southcentral Ontario. A primary host shift from red fox to striped skunk ( Mephitis mephitis) hampered efforts to eliminate the virus in southwestern Ontario until a new oral rabies vaccine was developed that effectively immunized both species. Through persistent and adaptive research and rabies control programs over the past 30 years, AFVV appears to have been eliminated from southern Ontario, with the last case confirmed in December 2018. Here we report on the history of AFVV in Ontario and methods used to eliminate the disease in southern parts of the province.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.353
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFACETSSame topicRabies epidemiology and controlFrench-language works237,207