MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966291387 · doi:10.1098/rsif.2019.0202

Invariant predictions of epidemic patterns from radically different forms of seasonal forcing

2019· article· en· W2966291387 on OpenAlexafffund

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Royal Society Interface · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsForcing (mathematics)Invariant (physics)SeasonalityDynamical systems theoryAmplitudeRobustness (evolution)Epidemic model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seasonal variation in environmental variables, and in rates of contact among individuals, are fundamental drivers of infectious disease dynamics. Unlike most periodically forced physical systems, for which the precise pattern of forcing is typically known, underlying patterns of seasonal variation in transmission rates can be estimated approximately at best, and only the period of forcing is accurately known. Yet solutions of epidemic models depend strongly on the forcing function, so dynamical predictions-such as changes in epidemic patterns that can be induced by demographic transitions or mass vaccination-are always subject to the objection that the underlying patterns of seasonality are poorly specified. Here, we demonstrate that the key bifurcations of the standard epidemic model are invariant to the shape of seasonal forcing if the amplitude of forcing is appropriately adjusted. Consequently, analyses applicable to real disease dynamics can be conducted with a smooth, idealized sinusoidal forcing function, and qualitative changes in epidemic patterns can be predicted without precise knowledge of the underlying forcing pattern. We find similar invariance in a seasonally forced predator-prey model, and conjecture that this phenomenon-and the associated robustness of predictions-might be a feature of many other periodically forced dynamical systems.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.317
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations10
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Royal Society InterfaceSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207