MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910006651 · doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2018.12.002

A practical generation-interval-based approach to inferring the strength of epidemics from their speed

2019· article· en· W2910006651 on OpenAlexafffund
Sang Woo Park, David Champredon, Joshua S. Weitz, Jonathan Dushoff

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityMcMaster University
FundersArmy Research OfficeCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGeneration timeInterval (graph theory)StatisticsMathematicsRabiesExponential growthApplied mathematicsBasic reproduction numberEconometricsBiologyCombinatoricsVirologyMathematical analysisDemographyPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Infectious disease outbreaks are often characterized by the reproduction number R and exponential rate of growth r. R provides information about outbreak control and predicted final size, but estimating R is difficult, while r can often be estimated directly from incidence data. These quantities are linked by the generation interval - the time between when an individual is infected by an infector, and when that infector was infected. It is often infeasible to obtain the exact shape of a generation-interval distribution, and to understand how this shape affects estimates of R. We show that estimating generation interval mean and variance provides insight into the relationship between R and r. We use examples based on Ebola, rabies and measles to explore approximations based on gamma-distributed generation intervals, and find that use of these simple approximations are often sufficient to capture the r-R relationship and provide robust estimates of R.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.396
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.042 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations71
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemicsSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207