Risk analysis for pig gastrointestinal parasites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A cross-sectional study was performed on pigs of the Emilia Romagna region (Italy). Sampling was stratified by farms (#54), with 75 samples selected within each randomly selected farm. In two farms only, 80 samples were collected. Qualitative coprological examinations were performed on individual faecal samples, and results entered in a working sheet together with data about animals (in particular categories) and indicators of farm management. \nDue to the great number of variables potentially confounding one-another and of possible interactions, in order to evaluate the risk of being parasitized the use of multivariate logistic regressions was preferred. The number of variables was reduced and/or summary variables created before analysis, in order to avoid variables with missing values and because too many information had been collected in relation to the number of observation (Noordhuizen JPTM et al, 1997, Application of quantitative methods in veterinary epidemiology, Wageningen Pers, The Netherlands. Dohoo I et al, 2003, Veterinary epidemiologic research, AVC Inc, Canada).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".