MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Route prediction model of infectious diseases for 2018 Winter Olympics in Korea

2014· article· en· W2113140198 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eungyeong Kim, Seok Lee, Young Tae Byun, Jae Hun Kim, Hyuk-Jae Lee, Taikjin Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Infectious disease (medical specialty)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)GeographyComputer scienceTransport engineeringOperations researchMedicineDiseaseEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many types of respiratory infectious diseases caused by germs, virus, mycetes and parasites. Researchers recently have tried to develop mathematical models to predict the epidemic of infectious diseases. However, with the development of ground transportation system in modern society, the spread of infectious diseases became faster and more complicated in terms of the speed and the pathways. The route of infectious diseases during Vancouver Olympics was predicted based on the Susceptible-Infectious-Recovered (SIR) model. In this model only the air traffic as an essential factor for the intercity migration of infectious diseases was involved. Here, we propose a multi-city transmission model to predict the infection route during 2018 Winter Olympics in Korea based on the pre-existing SIR model. Various types of transportation system such as a train, a car, a bus, and an airplane for the interpersonal contact in both inter- and intra-city are considered. Simulation is performed with assumptions and scenarios based on realistic factors including demographic, transportation and diseases data in Korea. Finally, we analyze an economic profit and loss caused by the variation of the number of tourists during the Olympics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.140
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Physics Conference SeriesSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207