Patterns, risk factors and characteristics of reported and perceived foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patterns of outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) in Uganda were elucidated from spatial and temporal retrospective data retrieved from monthly reports from District Veterinary Officers (DVOs) to the central administration for the years spanning 2001-2008. An assessment of perceived FMD occurrence, risk factors and the associated characteristics was made based on semi-structured questionnaires administered to the DVOs. During this period, a total of 311 FMD outbreaks were reported in 56 (70%) out of Uganda's 80 districts. The number of reported FMD outbreaks changed over time and by geographical regions. Occurrence of FMD was significantly associated with the dry season months (p = 0.0346), the time when animals movements are more frequent. The average number of FMD outbreaks was higher for some sub-counties adjacent to national parks than for other sub-counties, whilst proximity to international border only seemed to play a role at the southern border. DVOs believed that the major risk factor for FMD outbreaks was animal movements (odds ratio OR 50.8, confidence interval CI 17.8-144.6) and that most outbreaks were caused by introduction of sick animals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".