Response to the Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pandemic: Lessons Learned from the Taiwan Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), or coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19), emerged in December 2019 in Wuhan, China and has since then spurred a global pandemic (Lai et al., 2020). Taiwan and China, separated only by 130 km across the Taiwan Strait, have frequent cross-strait interactions with each other; millions of people travel to and from between the two countries (Wang & Lin, 2020). Considering these facts, Lauren Gardner, an associate professor at the Johns Hopkins University, even predicted that Taiwan will have the second highest number of COVID-19 cases among the world using a metapopulation model (Gardner et al., 2020). However, with a population of 23.7 million people, Taiwan leads one of the least COVID-19 cases worldwide. With the help of technology, swift reactions, advanced deployment of resources, and complete transparency, the Taiwan model has made its success. By analyzing the actions taken and how they functioned in Taiwan in preventing a nationwide epidemic, other countries may benefit in understanding how to design better models for the prevention of future epidemics and pandemics.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".