SARS-CoV-2 Transmission in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, Canada, December 25, 2019, to December 1, 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: This study aimed to investigate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) epidemiology in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, Canada. Methods: Using data through December 1, 2020, we estimated time-varying reproduction number, R t , using EpiEstim package in R, and calculated incidence rate ratios (IRR) across the 3 provinces. Results: In Ontario, 76% (92 745/121 745) of cases were in Toronto, Peel, York, Ottawa, and Durham; in Alberta, 82% (49 878/61 169) in Calgary and Edmonton; in British Columbia, 90% (31 142/34 699) in Fraser and Vancouver Coastal. Across 3 provinces, R t dropped to ≤ 1 after April. In Ontario, R t would remain < 1 in April if congregate-setting-associated cases were excluded. Over summer, R t maintained < 1 in Ontario, ~1 in British Columbia, and ~1 in Alberta, except early July when R t was > 1. In all 3 provinces, R t was > 1, reflecting surges in case count from September through November. Compared with British Columbia (684.2 cases per 100 000), Alberta (IRR = 2.0; 1399.3 cases per 100 000) and Ontario (IRR = 1.2; 835.8 cases per 100 000) had a higher cumulative case count per 100 000 population. Conclusions: Alberta and Ontario had a higher incidence rate than British Columbia, but R t trajectories were similar across all 3 provinces.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".