MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7027235724

Canadaâs Pandemic Influenza Preparedness: Laboratory strategy

2018· article· en· W7027235724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed Central · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfluenza Virus Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicInfluenza pandemicPreparednessPublic healthWork (physics)Pandemic influenzaPersonal protective equipmentIdentification (biology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Canadian Pandemic Influenza Preparedness: Planning Guidance for the Health Sector (CPIP) is a guidance document that outlines key health sector preparedness activities designed to ensure Canada is ready to respond to the next influenza pandemic. This article outlines Canada’s pandemic influenza laboratory strategy as described in the CPIP Laboratory Annex. Laboratory identification and characterization of an influenza pandemic virus is critical to detect the pandemic, develop a vaccine, detect antiviral resistance and inform surveillance functions such as monitoring the geographic spread of the disease. Key elements of the laboratory response will include ensuring there are adequate resources for all activities. Pre-analytical activities include the appropriate collection, transport to the laboratory, triaging and preparation of specimens. Analytical activities refer to the different testing methods for the detection of influenza, including maintaining the ability to culture influenza virus for genetic and antigenic characterization. Post-analytic activities include ensuring front-line and provincial public health laboratories work together to make data and specimens available for surveillance purposes. In the inter-pandemic period, it is important to develop the infrastructure, protocols and processes to enable rapid-response research during a pandemic. This is an evergreen document that will be updated regularly.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.245
Threshold uncertainty score0.708

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed CentralSame topicInfluenza Virus Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207