MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036368574 · doi:10.1136/bmj.326.7401.1232

Spread of SARS slows

2003· article· de· W2036368574 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
J. Parry

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2003
Typearticle
Languagede
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDisaster Response and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutbreakChinaDeath tollTollnobodyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicinePandemicSocioeconomicsGeographyDiseaseDemographyEnvironmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)VirologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) has slowed considerably, with only 182 new cases worldwide in the week to 2 June, taking the total to 8384. However, the disease claimed another 45 lives during the week, and the death toll stood at 770 people. The World Health Organization is cautiously optimistic that the outbreak in China is now under control and that the disease is on the decline in Taiwan, but Canada is experiencing a fresh outbreak linked to four Toronto hospitals. “As we approach the three month mark since the global alert was issued on 12 March, we are confident that the SARS outbreak is well on its way to being contained globally,” said Peter Cordingley, WHO's spokesman in Manila. “However, there are still pockets of anxiety, particularly in the more remote provinces of China and possibly Taiwan, and what has happened in Toronto should be a lesson to health authorities everywhere that nobody can afford to let their guard down,” he added. By 2 June Canada had reported 198 probable cases, and the new outbreak has put Canada back on WHO's list of areas with local transmission, 12 days after it was taken off. The death toll has risen to 31, and autopsies …

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)0.016
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.012

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations8
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicDisaster Response and ManagementFrench-language works237,207