MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3029619967 · doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa682

A Conceptual Discussion About the Basic Reproduction Number of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 in Healthcare Settings

2020· article· en· W3029619967 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Laura Temime, Marie‐Paule Gustin, Audrey Duval, Niccolò Buetti, Pascal Crépey, Didier Guillemot, Rodolphe Thiébaut, Philippe Vanhems, Jean‐Ralph Zahar, David R. Smith, Lulla Opatowski

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Infectious Diseases · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAstellas PharmaFondation de FranceSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungAgence Nationale de la RecherchePfizerAlliance Nationale pour les Sciences de la Vie et de la SantéWorld Health OrganizationSanofiNational Science Foundation
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CoronavirusSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Reproduction2019-20 coronavirus outbreakHealth careMedicineIntensive care medicineSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirusVirologyBiologyPolitical scienceInternal medicineDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Genetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To date, no specific estimate of R0 for SARS-CoV-2 is available for healthcare settings. Using interindividual contact data, we highlight that R0 estimates from the community cannot translate directly to healthcare settings, with pre-pandemic R0 values ranging 1.3-7.7 in 3 illustrative healthcare institutions. This has implications for nosocomial COVID-19 control.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.015
Scholarly communication0.0050.011
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.294
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations42
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Infectious DiseasesSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207