MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3085242604 · doi:10.1101/2020.09.09.20190983

Exploring Patterns and Trends in COVID-19 Exports from China, Italy, and Iran

2020· preprint· en· W3085242604 on OpenAlexaff
Michael L. McHenry, Ahmed Soliman, B. Dailey, Toby Chen, John J. Letterio, Guangbin Luo

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChinaCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Pandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Transmission (telecommunications)GeographyMedicineDemographySocioeconomicsOutbreakVirologyEconomicsInternal medicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary This paper investigates COVID-19 exported cases by country and the time it takes between entry until case confirmation for the exported cases using publicly available data. We report that the average days from entry to confirmation is 7.7, 5.0 and 4.7 days for travelers from China, Italy, and Iran respectively. Approximately, one-third of all exported cases were confirmed within 3 days of entry suggesting these travelers were mildly symptomatic or symptomatic in arrival. We also found that earlier exported cases from each country had a longer time between entry to confirmation by an average of 3 days compared to later exports. Based upon our data, reported exported cases from South Korea were far fewer in comparison to those from China, Italy and Iran. Therefore, we suggest that careful monitoring of likely symptomatic travelers and better public awareness may lead to faster confirmation as well as reduced transmission of COVID-19 pandemic.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.566
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→