Mass-gathering Health Research Foundational Theory: Part 2 - Event Modeling for Mass Gatherings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current knowledge about mass-gathering health (MGH) fails to adequately inform the understanding of mass gatherings (MGs) because of a relative lack of theory development and adequate conceptual analysis. This report describes the development of a series of event lenses that serve as a beginning "MG event model," complimenting the "MG population model" reported elsewhere. METHODS: Existing descriptions of "MGs" were considered. Analyzing gaps in current knowledge, the authors sought to delineate the population of events being reported. Employing a consensus approach, the authors strove to capture the diversity, range, and scope of MG events, identifying common variables that might assist researchers in determining when events are similar and might be compared. Through face-to-face group meetings, structured breakout sessions, asynchronous collaboration, and virtual international meetings, a conceptual approach to classifying and describing events evolved in an iterative fashion. Findings Embedded within existing literature are a variety of approaches to event classification and description. Arising from these approaches, the authors discuss the interplay between event demographics, event dynamics, and event design. Specifically, the report details current understandings about event types, geography, scale, temporality, crowd dynamics, medical support, protective factors, and special hazards. A series of tables are presented to model the different analytic lenses that might be employed in understanding the context of MG events. Interpretation The development of an event model addresses a gap in the current body of knowledge vis a vis understanding and reporting the full scope of the health effects related to MGs. Consistent use of a consensus-based event model will support more rigorous data collection. This in turn will support meta-analysis, create a foundation for risk assessment, allow for the pooling of data for illness and injury prediction, and support methodology for evaluating health promotion, harm reduction, and clinical response interventions at MGs.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".