Evaluating the impact of the travel ban within mainland China on the epidemic of the COVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic expanded its geographic distribution through the movement of humans and caused subsequent local outbreaks. Hence, it is essential to investigate how human mobility and travel ban affect the transmission and spatial spread while minimizing the impact on social activities and national economics. METHODS: We developed a mobility network model for spatial epidemics, explicitly taking into account time-varying inter-province and inner-province population flows, spatial heterogeneity in terms of disease transmission, as well as the impact of media reports. The model is applied to study the epidemic of the dynamic network of 30 provinces of mainland China. The model was calibrated using the publicly available incidence and movement data. RESULTS: We estimated that the second outbreak occurred approximately on February 24, 2020, and the cumulative number of cases as of March 15, 2020, increased by 290.1% (95% CI: (255.3%, 324.9%)) without a travel ban in mainland China (excluding Hubei and Tibet). We found that intra-province travel contributes more to the increase of cumulative number of cases than inter-province travel. CONCLUSION: Our quantitative and qualitative research results suggest that the strict travel ban has successfully prevented a severe secondary outbreak in mainland China, which provides solutions for many countries and regions experiencing secondary outbreaks of COVID-19.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".