Transmission assumptions generate conflicting predictions in host–vector disease models: a case study in West Nile virus
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review synthesizes the conflicting outbreak predictions generated by different biological assumptions in host-vector disease models. It is motivated by the North American outbreak of West Nile virus, an emerging infectious disease that has prompted at least five dynamical modelling studies. Mathematical models have long proven successful in investigating the dynamics and control of infectious disease systems. The underlying assumptions in these epidemiological models determine their mathematical structure, and therefore influence their predictions. A crucial assumption is the host-vector interaction encapsulated in the disease-transmission term, and a key prediction is the basic reproduction number, R(0). We connect these two model elements by demonstrating how the choice of transmission term qualitatively and quantitatively alters R(0) and therefore alters predicted disease dynamics and control implications. Whereas some transmission terms predict that reducing the host population will reduce disease outbreaks, others predict that this will exacerbate infection risk. These conflicting predictions are reconciled by understanding that different transmission terms apply biologically only at certain population densities, outside which they can generate erroneous predictions. For West Nile virus, R(0) estimates for six common North American bird species indicate that all would be effective outbreak hosts.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it