MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096789303

Letters

2006· article· en· W7096789303 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Orthopedics and Neurology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCullingBadgerQuarter (Canadian coin)Bovine tuberculosisTuberculosisEpidemiological surveillance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

bovine TB SIR, – Instead of fiddling around trying to find ever more reasons why they should not address the problem of endemic tuberculosis (TB) in badgers (VR, December 17, 2005, vol 157, p 786) DEFRA and the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB should ponder the fact that, from data released by DEFRA for 1996/98, at least a quarter of the badgers in England and Wales are infected with the disease (DEFRA 2005) and it won’t go away on its own. When, in 1998, DEFRA (then MAFF) stopped publishing data from carcases of badgers examined by MAFF, infection rates in the period 1996/98 in Great Britain overall were 26 per cent and rising, with pockets of infection in Gwent and East Sussex, of 82 per cent and 44 per cent respectively (DEFRA 2005). With the ever-increasing and uncontrolled badger pop-ulation the situation cannot be expected to have improved since then. We are, however, somewhat heartened to read more recently (VR, December 24/31, 2005, vol 157, p 823) that DEFRA is at last considering ‘general culling over large, loosely specified areas... through either farmer/landowner coordinated groups or a combination of state and farmer/landowner involvement’. This approach would appear to closely resem-ble the strategy of wildlife management that we advocated, over five years ago (VR,

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)0.011
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.742
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2580.171

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVeterinary Orthopedics and NeurologyFrench-language works237,207