Opportunities and obstacles to collecting wildlife disease data for public health purposes: Results of a pilot study on Vancouver Island, British Columbia
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing sources of wildlife morbidity and mortality data were evaluated and 3 pilot active surveillance projects were undertaken to compare and contrast methods for collecting wildlife disease data on Vancouver Island for public health purposes. Few organizations could collect samples for diagnostic evaluation, fewer still maintained records, and none regularly characterized or reported wildlife disease for public health purposes. Wildlife rehabilitation centers encountered the greatest variety of wildlife from the largest geographic area and frequently received submissions from other organizations. Obstacles to participation included the following: permit restrictions; financial disincentives; staff safety; no mandate to collect relevant data; and lack of contact between wildlife and public health agencies. Despite these obstacles, modest investments in personnel allowed novel pathogens of public health concern to be tracked. Targeted surveillance for known pathogens in specific host species, rather than general surveys for unspecified pathogens, was judged to be a more effective and efficient way to provide useful public health data.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 it