MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3128718233 · doi:10.1101/2021.02.05.21251230

UK and other SARS-CoV-2-Covariants - Simulation Modeling 70% Increase

2021· preprint· en· W3128718233 on OpenAlexaff
Ernie Chang, Kenneth Moselle

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaIsland Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInfectivityTransmission (telecommunications)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Constant (computer programming)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirusSet (abstract data type)Series (stratigraphy)Transmission rateEconometricsVirologyBiologyComputer scienceMathematicsMedicineInternal medicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT CovidSIMVL, an agent-based contagion-based viral transmission simulation tool, was employed to simulate the effects of viral agents of differing levels of infectivity. The constructs “Velocity” and “Increase in Velocity” were operationalized in terms of rates of transmission events over successive iterations (generations) in a set of CovidSIMVL trials. Treating 40-70% increase in velocity as a target, based on reports in the literature for the UK variant ( VUI 202012/01) , the series of trials reported in the paper demonstrate the calibration of CovidSIMVL parameters to produce increases in transmission rates of 40-70% above a baseline value. A series of follow-up studies is proposed to evaluate three different possible explanations for reported increases in SARS-Cov2-2 infections that are being attributed to spread of the UK and other variants: (a) simulations where the inherent characteristics of the virus (infectivity) are varied (genomic studies); (b) simulations where the behaviour of agents is varied (e.g., movement within and between spaces) while inherent characteristics of the virus are held constant (behavioural studies); and (c) simulations where both inherent properties of the virus and the behaviour of agents are varying to “tease out” the interaction between biologically-based contributions to increased case counts, and contextual/behavioural contributions (epigenetic studies).

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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.378
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.072 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→