MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785417406 · doi:10.1093/trstmh/try001

Zika virus transmission in Angola and the potential for further spread to other African settings

2017· article· en· W2785417406 on OpenAlexafffund
Moritz U. G. Kraemer, Oliver J. Brady, Alexander Watts, Matthew German, Simon I Hay, Kamran Khan, Isaac I. Bogoch

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersU.S. National Library of MedicineNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institutes of HealthWellcome TrustWellcomeBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsZika virusTransmission (telecommunications)GeographyWestern hemisphereAir travelSocioeconomicsVirusVirologyDemographyBiologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cases of Zika virus were recently detected in Luanda, Angola, a major travel hub in Africa. The risk of Zika virus transmission throughout the continent from Angola is evaluated. Methods: Travel volumes were assessed using monthly passenger-level flight data from Luanda to all locations throughout Africa. Travel data was superimposed onto seasonal environmental suitability maps that predict the potential for subsequent Zika virus transmission. Results and Conclusions: Windhoek, Maputo, Durban and Kinshasa have the greatest potential for Zika virus introduction and transmission during the southern hemisphere summer months, and Nairobi during the northern hemisphere summer months.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations30
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and HygieneSame topicMosquito-borne diseases and controlFrench-language works237,207