MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

The cut hunter

2011· book-chapter· en· W7005726 on OpenAlexaff
Jacques Pépin

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicHIV Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The next question to be addressed is: how did the virus cross species to infect humans? How did the simian immunodeficiency virus of P.t. troglodytes chimps become the human immunodeficiency virus type 1? Again, science started out with an intuition: this must have occurred through the handling of chimpanzee meat by hunters, or their wives who would cut up the animals before cooking them. We will now examine whether this theory remains plausible after reviewing the various pieces of evidence accumulated over the past decade. Hunters and their prey Hunters and/or cooks can acquire infectious agents from their prey, including primates. For instance, Herpes B virus is a rare but highly lethal infection of individuals who handle monkeys, and especially laboratory technicians working with rhesus and cynomolgus macaques. Monkeypox is a smallpox-like but benign viral infection associated with exposure to monkeys. Highly lethal Ebola and Marburg haemorrhagic fevers have been reported in veterinarians and villagers who handled the carcasses of apes that had died in the wild from these infections. Recently, a retrovirus called simian foamy virus (SFV) has been associated with human exposure to monkeys and apes, and its sequencing allows the identification of the exact simian source. American veterinarians and animal caretakers working in primate centres or zoos were found to be infected with SFV acquired from chimpanzees. Fortunately, this virus does not seem to be pathogenic for humans, and no person-to-person transmission has ever been documented.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.005
Scholarly communication0.0040.006
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0410.011

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicHIV Research and Treatment→French-language works237,207→