MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3106026508 · doi:10.1161/circ.142.suppl_4.220

Abstract 220: Public Defibrillator Accessibility and Mobility Trends During the Covid-19 Pandemic in Canada

2020· article· en· W3106026508 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kwan Leung, Rejuana Alam, Steven C. Brooks, Timothy C. Y. Chan

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsQueen's UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicRecreationGovernment (linguistics)Automated external defibrillatorMedical emergencyDemographyEmergency medicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread closures of non-essential businesses and buildings. The impact of such closures on public automated external defibrillator (AED) accessibility compared to mobility trends is unknown. Methods: We identified all publicly available online AED registries in Canada last updated May 1, 2019 or later. AEDs were classified by location type using addresses and registry notes, and deemed completely inaccessible, partially inaccessible, or unaffected using government-issued closure orders as of May 1, 2020. We mapped AED location types to categories used by Google’s COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports and calculated the median percent change in daily traffic between Feb. 15 - May 1, 2020 (excluding Apr. 10-12). We compared the percent of completely inaccessible AEDs to the median percent change in traffic for each category. Results: We identified three provincial (British Columbia, Alberta, Nova Scotia) and two municipal (Mississauga and Toronto in Ontario) online AED registries, collectively covering 13.1 million people. Of the 5,845 AEDs identified, 69.9% were completely inaccessible, 18.8% were partially inaccessible, and 11.3% were unaffected. AEDs in parks (n=141), almost all retail and recreational locations (n=1,539), and two-thirds of workplaces (n=3,633) were completely inaccessible, grocery and pharmacy-based (n=173) AEDs were partially inaccessible, and transit station (n=277) and residential (n=85) AEDs were unaffected. The largest discrepancies between AED accessibility and mobility occurred in parks (100% completely inaccessible vs. 10.5% traffic decrease), retail and recreation (99.0% completely inaccessible vs. 48.0% traffic decrease), and transit stations (100% unaffected vs. 63.0% traffic decrease). Conclusion: Government-mandated closures due to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to a greater reduction in AED accessibility than mobility in many locations across Canada.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation→Same topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19→French-language works237,207→