Knowledge, (mis-)conceptions, risk perception, and behavior change during pandemics: A scoping review of 149 studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 pandemic has spread rapidly and has a growing impact on individuals, communities, and healthcare systems worldwide. At the core of any pandemic response is the ability of authorities and other stakeholders to react appropriately by promoting hygiene and social distancing behaviors. Successfully reaching this goal requires both individual and collective efforts to drastically modify daily routines and activities. There is a need to clarify how knowledge and awareness of disease influence risk perception, and subsequent behavior in the context of pandemics and global outbreaks. We conducted a scoping review of 149 studies spanning different regions and populations to examine the relationships between knowledge, risk perceptions, and behavior change. We analyzed studies on five major pandemics or outbreaks in the twenty-first century: severe acute respiratory syndrome, influenza A/H1N1, Middle East respiratory syndrome, Ebola virus disease, and coronavirus disease 2019.
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.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it