MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3034180347 · doi:10.1101/2020.06.12.20129833

How much leeway is there to relax COVID-19 control measures?

2020· preprint· en· W3034180347 on OpenAlexafffund
Sean C. Anderson, Nicola Mulberry, Andrew M. J. Edwards, Jessica E. Stockdale, Sarafa A. Iyaniwura, Rebeca Cardim Falcão, Michael Otterstatter, Naveed Z. Janjua, Daniel Coombs, Caroline Colijn

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of VictoriaSimon Fraser UniversityBC Centre for Disease ControlFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaGenome British ColumbiaMichael Smith Health Research BCGovernment of CanadaAustralian Government
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Control (management)Psychological interventionBusinessSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Transmission (telecommunications)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPandemicEconomicsMedicineComputer scienceVirologyOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following successful widespread non-pharmaceutical interventions aiming to control COVID-19, many jurisdictions are moving towards reopening economies and borders. Given that little immunity has developed in most populations, re-establishing higher contact rates within and between populations carries substantial risks. Using a Bayesian epidemiological model, we estimate the leeway to reopen in a range of national and regional jurisdictions that have experienced different COVID-19 epidemics. We estimate the risks associated with different levels of reopening and the likely burden of new cases due to introductions from other jurisdictions. We find widely varying leeway to reopen, high risks of exceeding past peak sizes, and high possible burdens per introduced case per week, up to hundreds in some jurisdictions. We recommend a cautious approach to reopening economies and borders, coupled with strong monitoring for changes in 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.872
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.383
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.043 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations9
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207