MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3099783704 · doi:10.1162/asep_a_00800

How China Managed the COVID-19 Pandemic*

2020· article· en· W3099783704 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wei Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Economic Papers · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicCOVID-19 Pandemic Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeijingChinaPandemicBusinessGovernment (linguistics)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Investment (military)Resource (disambiguation)OutbreakEconomic recoveryQuarter (Canadian coin)Economic policyEconomic growthDevelopment economicsEconomicsGeographyDiseasePolitical scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The COVID-19 pandemic has swept across China and the world, causing more than 30 million infections and incalculable damage. China was seriously damaged and threatened by the disease in the first quarter of 2020, but finally succeeded in halting its spread in a short period. This was achieved through quick and strong measures in self-protection, mobility control, resource allocation, professional health care, and disinfection, under the organization of the government and the cooperation of all the Chinese people. The measures that were taken to prevent the spread of COVID-19 proved to be efficient in fighting the outbreak in Beijing in June 2020. This paper reviews China's experience with COVID-19, the Chinese economy's performance during the pandemic, and the government's policies to protect lives, maintain markets, and promote the economy. The data show that strong monetary and fiscal policies accelerated the country's economic recovery. These policies, including tax reductions and credit support, targeting small- and medium-size enterprises (SMEs) and industries and regions that were severely damaged, have helped to create jobs and encourage production and investment.

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)0.002
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.250

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Economic PapersSame topicCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactsFrench-language works237,207