Risk of COVID-19 infection and work place exposure of front-line mass media professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Introduction Mass media plays a crucial role in creating awareness and knowledge sharing in this Corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. However, the risk of exposure and extent of COVID-19 infection among media professional are less elucidated yet. Therefore, this study was intended to investigate the workplace-related risk of COVID-19 exposure and the association between exposure to COVID-19 and participant’s characteristics, including various forms of respiratory protection for mass-media professionals. Methods This closed web-based cross-sectional survey was conducted among 199 mass-media professionals in Bangladesh by snowball sampling approach. A multivariate logistic regression model was used for the analytical exploration. Adjusted and Unadjusted Odds Ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) were calculated for the specified exposures. Chi-square test was used to observe the association. Ethical issues were maintained according to the guidance of the declaration of the Helsinki. Results Of all, 39.2% of mass-media professionals were tested positive for COVID-19, whereas 6% of symptomatic or suspected participants did not do the test. Mass media professionals who worked in electronic media reported more COVID-19 infection (adjusted odds ratio, AOR= 6.25; 95% Confidence interval: Lower limit 1.43, upper limit 27.43; P =0.02). However, no significant relationship was found between the type of job role and COVID-19 infection. Furthermore, infected colleagues (OR/P=1.92/0.04) were identified as significant contact of acquiring infection. However, the study result showed that reused/new medical mask, homemade/cloth-made mask (vs. use of respirator mask) was not significantly (p=0.82) associated with mass media professional’s infection. Conclusions Professionals working in electronic media were at higher risk of being infected by COVID-19 and mostly acquired from infected colleagues. Using a respirator mask was not associated with a lower risk of test positive infection in mass media professionals. This study will aid the policy maker and public health authorities during the COVID-19 pandemic to make proper implementation strategies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".