Why is it difficult to accurately predict the COVID-19 epidemic?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the COVID-19 outbreak in Wuhan City in December of 2019, numerous model predictions on the COVID-19 epidemics in Wuhan and other parts of China have been reported. These model predictions have shown a wide range of variations. In our study, we demonstrate that nonidentifiability in model calibrations using the confirmed-case data is the main reason for such wide variations. Using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) for model selection, we show that an SIR model performs much better than an SEIR model in representing the information contained in the confirmed-case data. This indicates that predictions using more complex models may not be more reliable compared to using a simpler model. We present our model predictions for the COVID-19 epidemic in Wuhan after the lockdown and quarantine of the city on January 23, 2020. We also report our results of modeling the impacts of the strict quarantine measures undertaken in the city after February 7 on the time course of the epidemic, and modeling the potential of a second outbreak after the return-to-work in the city.
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 | 0.009 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".