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
On 1 February 2003, the Chinese authorities in Guangdong Province reported that 300 people had become ill and five had died in an outbreak of a mysterious respiratory illness. On 28 February a Chinese doctor, infected in Guangdong, stayed at the Metropole Hotel in Hong Kong. Twelve other guests at the hotel contracted the illness. When the infected guests left the hotel and fiew home they carried the virus to five countries in three different continents. Two remained in Hong Kong. In Canada the disease spread through two extended families. In Vietnam and Hong Kong health workers became infected. An infected health worker from Singapore flew to New York then on to Frankfurt. Meanwhile, the disease continued to spread throughout China. On 24 March, the World Health Organisation (WHO) announced that Sars is a new form of the coronavirus, a pathogen known to affect humans, but not a global killer. Strict containment of all known cases is vital. A team of WHO doctors had been in Beijing but was waiting for permission to visit other provinces where there were thought to be clusters of cases. After a week of waiting, the doctors were allowed to go to Guangdong. Under intense pressure and criticism from WHO, the Chinese Health Ministry announced the outbreak had begun five months earlier. They had far more cases than the 40 previously announced — nearly 400. On 5 April, China apologised for its slow response to the Sars outbreak. There were allegations that officials had covered up the extent of the spread of the disease.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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