ANOVA to Compare Three Methods to Track COVID-19 in Nine Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new coronavirus denominated first 2019-nCoV and later SARS-CoV-2 was found in Wuhan, China in December of 2019. This paper compares three mathematical methods: nonlinear regression, SIR, and SEIR epidemic models, to track the covid-19 disease in nine countries affected by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, to help epidemiologists to know the disease trajectory, considering initial data in the pandemic, mainly 100 days from the beginning. To evaluate the results obtained with the three methods one-way ANOVA is applied. The average of predicted infected cases with SARS-CoV-2, obtained with the mentioned methods was: for United States of America 1,098,508, followed by Spain with 226,721, Italy with 202,953, France with 183,897 United Kingdom with 182,190, Germany with 159,407, Canada with 58,696, Mexico with 50,366 and Argentina with 4,860 in average. The one-way ANOVA does not show a significant difference among the results of the projected infected cases by SARS-CoV-2, using nonlinear regression, SIR, and SEIR epidemic methods. The above could mean that initially any method can be used to model the pandemic course.
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 | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".