Bibliographic record
Abstract
An epidemic can be characterized by its strength (i.e., the reproductive number <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="script">R</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> ) and speed (i.e., the exponential growth rate r ). Disease modellers have historically placed much more emphasis on strength, in part because the effectiveness of an intervention strategy is typically evaluated on this scale. Here, we develop a mathematical framework for the classic, strength-based paradigm and show that there is a dual speed-based paradigm which can provide complementary insights. In particular, we note that r = 0 is a threshold for disease spread, just like <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mi mathvariant="script">R</mml:mi> </mml:mrow> <mml:mo>=</mml:mo> <mml:mn>1</mml:mn> </mml:math> [ 1 ], and show that we can measure the strength and speed of an intervention on the same scale as the strength and speed of an epidemic, respectively. We argue that, while the strength-based paradigm provides the clearest insight into certain questions, the speed-based paradigm provides the clearest view in other cases. As an example, we show that evaluating the prospects of ‘test-and-treat’ interventions against the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) can be done more clearly on the speed than strength scale, given uncertainty in the proportion of HIV spread that happens early in the course of infection. We also discuss evaluating the effects of the importance of pre-symptomatic transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. We suggest that disease modellers should avoid over-emphasizing the reproductive number at the expense of the exponential growth rate, but instead look at these as complementary measures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".