Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the coronavirus pandemic spreads across the globe, people are debating policies to mitigate its severity. Many complex, highly detailed models have been developed to help policy setters make better decisions. However, the basis of these models is unlikely to be understood by non-experts. We describe the advantages of simple models for COVID-19. We say a model is "simple" if its only parameter is the rate of contact between people in the population. This contact rate can vary over time, depending on choices by policy setters. Such models can be understood by a broad audience, and thus can be helpful in explaining the policy decisions to the public. They can be used to evaluate the outcomes of different policies. However, simple models have a disadvantage when dealing with inhomogeneous populations. To augment the power of a simple model to evaluate complicated situations, we add what we call "satellite" equations that do not change the original model. For example, with the help of a satellite equation, one could know what his/her chance is of remaining uninfected through the end of an epidemic. Satellite equations can model the effects of the epidemic on high-risk individuals, death rates, and nursing homes and other isolated populations. To compare simple models with complex models, we introduce our "slightly complex" Model J. We find the conclusions of simple and complex models can be quite similar. However, for each added complexity, a modeler may have to choose additional parameter values describing who will infect whom under what conditions, choices for which there is often little rationale but that can have big impacts on predictions. Our simulations suggest that the added complexity offers little predictive advantage.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.005 |
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".