Controlling SARS: a review on China’s response compared with other SARS‐affected countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To summarise the major control measures implemented by severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS)-affected countries and to compare distinctive features of the Chinese approach to other affected Asian countries and Canada. METHOD: Literature review. RESULTS: The realisation in March 2003 that SARS was spreading led affected countries to introduce measures such as rapid dissemination of information, early case detection and isolation, tracing and quarantining of SARS contacts, traveller screening, raising public awareness of risk and institution of stricter infection control in health care settings. SARS became a notifiable disease in China in mid-April 2003, after which introduction of efficient nationwide control measures led to containment within 2 months. Countries differed in the timeliness of implementing control measures, the mode and extent to which these were enforced and in the resources available to do so. CONCLUSION: SARS challenged the political and public health systems of all affected countries. It demanded rapid and decisive action to be taken, yet the comparison shows how difficult this was for an unknown new disease. Guangdong reacted rapidly but this pace was not continued by China for some time, which facilitated national and international spread. Once the Chinese government changed its policy, it developed an impressive control strategy involving the public which culminated in containment. The significance of timely information was perhaps the main lesson which the SARS epidemic taught.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".