Innovating at the human–technology interface in disasters and disease outbreaks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Disasters and disease outbreaks have long been a catalyst for innovative applications of emerging technologies. The urgent need to respond to an emergency leads to resourceful uses of the technologies at hand. However, the best and most cost-effective use of new technologies is to prevent disease and improve resilience. In this paper, the authors present a range of approaches through which both opportunities can be grasped. Global connectedness enables more data to be collected and processed in emergencies, especially with the rise of open-source data, including social media. In general, the poorest and most remote populations are most vulnerable to disaster. However, with smaller, faster, smarter, cheaper and more connected technology, reliable, efficient, and targeted response and recovery can be provided. Initially, crowdsourcing was used to find people, map affected areas, and determine resource allocation. This led to the generation of an overwhelming amount of data, and the need to extract valuable information from that data in a timely manner. As technology evolved, organisations started outsourcing many tasks, first to other people, then to machines. Since the volume of data generated outpaces human capacity, data analysis is being automated using artificial intelligence and machine learning, which furthers our abilities in predictive analytics. As we move towards prevention rather than remediation, information collection and processing must become faster and more efficient while maintaining accuracy. Moreover, these new strategies and technologies can help us to move forwards, by integrating layers of human, veterinary, public, and environmental health data for a One Health approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".