MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099291112

Original Articles Mosquito Vector Biting and Community Protection in a

2010· article· en· W7099291112 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiofuel production and bioconversion
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalariaAnopheles stephensiBitingVector (molecular biology)AnophelesTransmission (telecommunications)Quarter (Canadian coin)Insect bites and stings
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Use of bed-net continues to offer potential strategy for malaria prevention in endemic areas. Local communities are indispensable during design and implementation stages. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 192 randomly selected inhabitants was carried out in malarious zone, Siahoo direstrict, Hormozgan Province, southern Iran. In addition, we monitored human landing periodicity of main malaria vectors and as well as self-protection of inhabitant in the study area for a period of one transmission season between April to October 2006. Results: The biting activities were seen throughout the whole night for three malaria vectors, Anopheles fluviatilis, An. stephensi and An. dthali, and An. fluviatilis exhibiting bimodal peaks, the first at midnight (0:00−1:00) and the other before dawn (5:00−6:00 am) but the maximum biting activity of An. stephensi was occurred at second quarter of night (11:00−12:00 pm). The majority of interviewers (83.3%) knew that malaria was transmitted by mosquitoes and 70.3 % of them stated that bed-net is the best control measures. Most subjects (62%) did not have a mosquito net. Conclusion: Study subjects were aware of an association between mosquito bite and malaria transmission. Health workers at different levels of the health care delivery system should disseminate relevant information about self-protection to help community members to be involved more in malaria control.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.198 · 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.

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiofuel production and bioconversion→French-language works237,207→