MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1538902679 · doi:10.1155/2011/527610

The Failure of <i>R</i><sub>0</sub>

2011· review· en· W1538902679 on OpenAlexafffund
Jing Li, Daniel Blakeley, Robert J. Smith

Bibliographic record

VenueComputational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacs
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)StatisticsProperty (philosophy)PopulationDiseaseMeasure (data warehouse)MathematicsEconometricsComputer scienceMedicineData miningEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The basic reproductive ratio, R(0), is one of the fundamental concepts in mathematical biology. It is a threshold parameter, intended to quantify the spread of disease by estimating the average number of secondary infections in a wholly susceptible population, giving an indication of the invasion strength of an epidemic: if R(0) < 1, the disease dies out, whereas if R(0) > 1, the disease persists. R(0) has been widely used as a measure of disease strength to estimate the effectiveness of control measures and to form the backbone of disease-management policy. However, in almost every aspect that matters, R(0) is flawed. Diseases can persist with R(0) < 1, while diseases with R(0) > 1 can die out. We show that the same model of malaria gives many different values of R(0), depending on the method used, with the sole common property that they have a threshold at 1. We also survey estimated values of R(0) for a variety of diseases, and examine some of the alternatives that have been proposed. If R(0) is to be used, it must be accompanied by caveats about the method of calculation, underlying model assumptions and evidence that it is actually a threshold. Otherwise, the concept is meaningless.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.006
Scholarly communication0.0020.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.497
GPT teacher head0.569
Teacher spread0.071 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations226
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputational and Mathematical Methods in MedicineSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207