Public defibrillator accessibility and mobility trends during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to closures of non-essential businesses and buildings. The impact of such closures on automated external defibrillator (AED) accessibility compared to changes in foot traffic levels is unknown. METHODS: We identified all publicly available online AED registries in Canada last updated May 1, 2019 or later. We mapped AED locations to location types and classified each location type as completely inaccessible, partially inaccessible, or unaffected based on government-issued closure orders as of May 1, 2020. Using location and mobility data from Google's COVID-19 Community Mobility Reports, we identified the change in foot traffic levels between February 15-May 1, 2020 (excluding April 10-12) compared to the baseline of January 3-February 1, 2020, and determined the discrepancy between foot traffic levels and AED accessibility. RESULTS: We identified four provincial and two municipal AED registries containing a total of 5848 AEDs. Of those, we estimated that 69.9% were completely inaccessible, 18.8% were partially inaccessible, and 11.3% were unaffected. Parks, retail and recreation locations, and workplaces experienced the greatest reduction in AED accessibility. The greatest discrepancies between foot traffic levels and AED accessibility occurred in parks, retail and recreation locations, and transit stations. CONCLUSION: A majority of AEDs became inaccessible during the COVID-19 pandemic due to government-mandated closures. In a substantial number of locations across Canada, the reduction in AED accessibility was far greater than the reduction in foot traffic.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".