Experimental investigation of far‐field human cough airflows from healthy and influenza‐infected subjects
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Seasonal influenza epidemics have been responsible for causing increased economic expenditures and many deaths worldwide. Evidence exists to support the claim that the virus can be spread through the air, but the relative significance of airborne transmission has not been well defined. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) and hot-wire anemometry (HWA) measurements were conducted at 1 m away from the mouth of human subjects to develop a model for cough flow behavior at greater distances from the mouth than were studied previously. Biological aerosol sampling was conducted to assess the risk of exposure to airborne viruses. Throughout the investigation, 77 experiments were conducted from 58 different subjects. From these subjects, 21 presented with influenza-like illness. Of these, 12 subjects had laboratory-confirmed respiratory infections. A model was developed for the cough centerline velocity magnitude time history. The experimental results were also used to validate computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models. The peak velocity observed at the cough jet center, averaged across all trials, was 1.2 m/s, and an average jet spread angle of θ = 24° was measured, similar to that of a steady free jet. No differences were observed in the velocity or turbulence characteristics between coughs from sick, convalescent, or healthy participants.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it