MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2273097099 · doi:10.1098/rspb.2015.2026

Intrinsic and realized generation intervals in infectious-disease transmission

2015· article· en· W2273097099 on OpenAlexafffund
David Champredon, Jonathan Dushoff

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsInfectious disease (medical specialty)Disease transmissionTransmission (telecommunications)BiologyDiseaseVirologyMedicineComputer scienceInternal medicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generation interval is the interval between the time when an individual is infected by an infector and the time when this infector was infected. Its distribution underpins estimates of the reproductive number and hence informs public health strategies. Empirical generation-interval distributions are often derived from contact-tracing data. But linking observed generation intervals to the underlying generation interval required for modelling purposes is surprisingly not straightforward, and misspecifications can lead to incorrect estimates of the reproductive number, with the potential to misguide interventions to stop or slow an epidemic. Here, we clarify the theoretical framework for three conceptually different generation-interval distributions: the 'intrinsic' one typically used in mathematical models and the 'forward' and 'backward' ones typically observed from contact-tracing data, looking, respectively, forward or backward in time. We explain how the relationship between these distributions changes as an epidemic progresses and discuss how empirical generation-interval data can be used to correctly inform mathematical models.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.666
Threshold uncertainty score0.706

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.126 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations93
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Royal Society B Biological SciencesSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207