MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3109378612 · doi:10.1097/phh.0000000000001284

Variation Among Public Health Interventions in Initial Efforts to Prevent and Control the Spread of COVID-19 in the 50 States, 29 Big Cities, and the District of Columbia

2020· article· en· W3109378612 on OpenAlexaff
Michael R. Fraser, Chrissie Juliano, Gabrielle Nichols

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Public Health Management and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPublic Health Policies and Education
Canadian institutionsFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionPublic healthPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)State (computer science)PreemptionTransmission (telecommunications)Public health interventionsEnvironmental healthSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakBusinessPolitical scienceMedicineDiseaseVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Computer scienceNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

US states and big cities acted to protect the residents of their jurisdictions from the threat of SARS-CoV-2 infection and reduce COVID-19 transmission. As there were no known pharmacologic interventions to prevent COVID-19 at the outset of the pandemic, public health and elected leaders implemented a host of nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to slow the spread of the virus. This article discusses variation among states and cities in their implementation of 3 NPIs: stay-at-home/shelter-in-place orders, gathering restrictions, and mask mandates. We illustrate how frequently each was used by states and big cities, discuss state and local authorities to implement such interventions, and consider how these NPIs and accompanying public adherence to public health orders may vary considerably in different regions of the country and by local and state laws specific to state preemption of public health authority.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.038
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.807
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0380.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.473
Teacher spread0.293 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Public Health Management and PracticeSame topicPublic Health Policies and EducationFrench-language works237,207