Modeling risk of infectious diseases: a case of Coronavirus outbreak in four countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The novel coronavirus (2019-nCOV) outbreak has been a serious concern around the globe. Since people are in tremor due to the massive spread of Coronavirus in the major parts of the world, it requires to predict the risk of this infectious disease. In this situation, we develop a model to measure the risk of infectious disease and predict the risk of 2019-nCOV transmission by using data of four countries—US, Australia, Canada and China. Methods The model underlies that higher the population density, higher the risk of transmission of infectious disease from human to human. Besides, population size, case identification rate and travel of infected passengers in different regions are also incorporated in this model. Results According to the calculated risk index, our study identifies New York State in United States (US) to be the most vulnerable area affected by the novel Coronavirus. Besides, other areas (province/state/territory) such as Hubei (China, 2 nd ), Massachusetts (US, 3 rd ), District of Columbia (US, 4 th ), New Jersey (US, 5 th ), Quebec (Canada, 20 th ), Australian Capital Territory (Australia, 29 th ) are also found as the most risky areas in US, China, Australia and Canada. Conclusion The study suggests avoiding any kind of mass gathering, maintaining recommended physical distances and restricting inbound and outbound flights of highly risk prone areas for tackling 2019-nCOV transmission.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".