Neighbourhood control policies and the spread of infectious diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a model of a control programme for a disease outbreak in a population of livestock holdings. Control is achieved by culling infectious holdings when they are discovered and by the pre-emptive culling of livestock on holdings deemed to be at enhanced risk of infection. Because the pre-emptive control programme cannot directly identify exposed holdings, its implementation will result in the removal of both infected and uninfected holdings. This leads to a fundamental trade-off: increased levels of control produce a greater reduction in transmission by removing more exposed holdings, but increase the number of uninfected holdings culled. We derive an expression for the total number of holdings culled during the course of an outbreak and demonstrate that there is an optimal control policy, which minimizes this loss. Using a metapopulation model to incorporate local clustering of infection, we examine a neighbourhood control programme in a locally spreading outbreak. We find that there is an optimal level of control, which increases with increasing basic reproduction ratio, R(0); moreover, implementation of control may be optimal even when R(0) < 1. The total loss to the population is relatively insensitive to the level of control as it increases beyond the optimal level, suggesting that over-control is a safer policy than under-control.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".