Two Distinct Dynamic Process Models of COVID-19 Spread with Divergent Vaccination Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Kinematic models of contagion-based viral transmission describe patterns of events over time (e.g., new infections), relying typically on systems of differential equations to reproduce those patterns. By contrast, agent-based models of viral transmission seek to relate those events or patterns of events to causes, expressed in terms of factors (parameters) that determine the dynamics that give rise to those events. This paper is concerned with the dynamics of contagion-based spread of infection. Dynamics that reflect time homogeneous vs inhomogeneous transmission rates are generated via an agent-based infectious disease modeling tool (CovidSIMVL - github.com/ecsendmail/MultiverseContagion ). These different dynamics are treated as causal factors and are related to differences in vaccine efficacy in an array of simulated vaccination trials. Visualizations of simulated trials and associated metrics illustrate graphically some cogent reasons for not effectively hard-coding assumptions of dynamic temporal homogeneity, which come ‘pre-packaged’ with the mass action incidence assumption that underpins typical equation-based models of infection spread.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".