MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095171769

doi:10.4061/2011/591980 Research Article Lesion Distribution and Epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis in

2013· article· en· W7095171769 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMycobacterium research and diagnosis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCullingEpidemiologyMycobacterium bovisDistribution (mathematics)PrevalenceTransmission (telecommunications)Reproduction
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Surveillance for Mycobacterium bovis in free-ranging elk (Cervus elaphus) and white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) from south-western Manitoba was carried out from 1997 to 2010 to describe the lesions, epidemiology, and geographic distribution of disease. Tissues were cultured from animals killed by hunters, culled for management, blood-tested, or found opportunistically. Period prevalence in elk was approximately six times higher than deer, suggesting a significant reservoir role for elk, but that infected deer may also be involved. Prevalence was consistently higher in elk compared to deer in a small core area and prevalence declines since 2003 are likely due to a combination of management factors instituted during that time. Older age classes and animals sampled from the core area were at significantly higher risk of being culture positive. Positive elk and deer were more likely to be found through blood testing, opportunistic surveillance, and culling compared to hunting. No non-lesioned, culture-positive elk were detected in this study compared to previous studies in red deer. 1.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6290.431

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.291 · 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.

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMycobacterium research and diagnosis→French-language works237,207→