Human mobility patterns predict divergent epidemic dynamics among cities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The epidemic dynamics of infectious diseases vary among cities, but it is unclear how this is caused by patterns of infectious contact among individuals. Here, we ask whether systematic differences in human mobility patterns are sufficient to cause inter-city variation in epidemic dynamics for infectious diseases spread by casual contact between hosts. We analyse census data on the mobility patterns of every full-time worker in 48 Canadian cities, finding a power-law relationship between population size and the level of organization in mobility patterns, where in larger cities, a greater fraction of workers travel to work in a few focal locations. Similarly sized cities also vary in the level of organization in their mobility patterns, equivalent on average to the variation expected from a 2.64-fold change in population size. Systematic variation in mobility patterns is sufficient to cause significant differences among cities in infectious disease dynamics-even among cities of the same size-according to an individual-based model of airborne pathogen transmission parametrized with the mobility data. This suggests that differences among cities in host contact patterns are sufficient to drive differences in infectious disease dynamics and provides a framework for testing the effects of host mobility patterns in city-level disease data.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".