Optimal media reporting intensity on mitigating spread of an emerging infectious disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mass media reports can induce individual behaviour change during a disease outbreak, which has been found to be useful as it reduces the force of infection. We propose a compartmental model by including a new compartment of the intensity of the media reports, which extends existing models by considering a novel media function, which is dependent both on the number of infected individuals and on the intensity of mass media. The existence and stability of the equilibria are analyzed and an optimal control problem of minimizing the total number of cases and total cost is considered, using reduction or enhancement in the media reporting rate as the control. With the help of Pontryagin's Maximum Principle, we obtain the optimal media reporting intensity. Through parameterization of the model with the 2009 A/H1N1 influenza outbreak data in the 8th Hospital of Xi'an in Shaanxi Province of China, we obtain the basic reproduction number for the formulated model with two particular media functions. The optimal media reporting intensity obtained here indicates that during the early stage of an epidemic we should quickly enhance media reporting intensity, and keep it at a maximum level until it can finally weaken when epidemic cases have decreased significantly. Numerical simulations show that media impact reduces the number of cases during an epidemic, but that the number of cases is further mitigated under the optimal reporting intensity. Sensitivity analysis implies that the outbreak severity is more sensitive to the weight α1 (weight of media effect sensitive to infected individuals) than weight α2 (weight of media effect sensitive to media items).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".