MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7099297305

INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR DISPATCHES Population-based Survey of Invasive Bacterial Diseases, Greenland,

2013· article· en· W7099297305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStreptococcus pneumoniaeDiseaseHaemophilus influenzaeCircumpolar starIncidence (geometry)Bacterial diseaseStaphylococcus aureusPopulation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Invasive bacterial disease occurs frequently among native populations in the Arctic. Although a variety of bacteria are involved in invasive bacterial disease in Greenland, Streptococcus pneumoniae, Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus aureus, and other staphylococci are responsible for most cases (69%); incidence varies according to region and ethnicity. The incidence of invasive disease caused by Streptococcus pneumoniae and several other bacteria is markedly higher in the Inuit populations of Alaska, Canada, and Greenland than in the non-Inuit populations of the same areas (1–3). The clinical extent of invasive disease caused by S. pneumoniae is severe; sequelae and case-fatality rates are almost 4 × higher in native than in nonnative populations (1,4). As living conditions in Arctic populations in many ways are comparable, an international, cooperative, population-based surveillance for invasive diseases was established in 1999 (5). The International Circumpolar Surveillance (ICS) network registers invasive disease caused by S. pneumoniae, Haemophilus infl uenzae, Neisseria meningitidis, group A streptococcus, and group B streptococcus

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)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.833

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology→French-language works237,207→