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 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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.027
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 score0.074
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.027
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 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

Citations16
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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