Estimates of COVID-19 Cases across Four Canadian Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article estimates population infection rates from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) across four Canadian provinces from late March to early May 2020. The analysis combines daily data on the number of conducted tests and diagnosed cases with a methodology that corrects for non-random testing. We estimate the relationship between daily changes in the number of conducted tests and the fraction of positive cases in the non-random sample (typically less than 1 percent of the population) and apply this gradient to extrapolate the predicted fraction of positive cases if testing were expanded to the entire population. Over the sample period, the estimated population infection rates were 1.7-2.6 percent in Quebec, 0.7-1.4 percent in Ontario, 0.5-1.2 percent in Alberta, and 0.2-0.4 percent in British Columbia. In each province, these estimates are substantially below the average positive case rate, consistent with non-random testing of higher-risk populations. The results also imply widespread undiagnosed COVID-19 infection. For each identified case by mid-April, we estimate there were roughly 12 population infections.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.161 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".