MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1570529436 · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1310.8360

A SIS reaction-diffusion-advection model in a low-risk and high-risk domain

2013· preprint· en· W1570529436 on OpenAlexaff
Jing Ge, Kwang Ik Kim, Zhigui Lin, Huaiping Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenuearXiv (Cornell University) · 2013
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdvectionDiffusionBasic reproduction numberReaction–diffusion systemDomain (mathematical analysis)Boundary (topology)Front (military)MathematicsMechanicsPhysicsMeteorologyMathematical analysisMedicineEnvironmental healthThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A simplified SIS reaction-diffusion-advection model is proposed and investigated to understand the impact of spatial heterogeneity of environment and advection on the persistence and eradication of an infectious disease. The free boundary is introduced to model the contact transmission at the spreading front of the disease. The behavior of positive solutions to a reaction-diffusion-advection system are discussed. The basic reproduction number $R_0^F(t)$ associated with the diseases in the spatial setting is introduced for this diffusive SIS model with the free boundary, we prove that fast diffusion, small expanding rate and small initial infected domain are benefit for the control of the spatial spread of the disease. Sufficient conditions for the disease to be eradicated or to spread are also given, our result shows that the disease will spread to the whole area if there exists a $t_0\geq 0$ such that $R_{0}^F(t_0)\geq 1$, that is, if the spreading domain is high-risk at some time, the disease will continue to spread till the whole area is infected; while if $R_{0}^F(0)<1$, the disease may be vanishing or keep spreading depends on the expanding rate and the initial number of the infective individuals. The spreading speeds are also given when spreading happens, and numerical simulations are also given to illustrate the impacts of the advection and the expanding rate on the spreading fronts.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.164 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuearXiv (Cornell University)→Same topicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models→French-language works237,207→