The impact of contact tracing on the spread of COVID-19: an egocentric agent-based model
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract At its core, contact tracing is a form of egocentric network analysis (ENA). One of the biggest obstacles for ENA is informant accuracy (i.e., amount of true contacts identified), which is even more prominent for interaction-based network ties because they often represent episodic relational events, rather than enduring relational states. This research examines the effect of informant accuracy on the spread of COVID-19 through an egocentric, agent-based model. Overall when the average person transmits COVID-19 to 1.62 other people (i.e., the R 0 ), they must be, on average, 75% accurate with naming their contacts. In higher transmission contexts (i.e., transmitting to at least two other people), the results show that multi-level tracing (i.e., contact tracing the contacts) is the only viable strategy. Finally, sensitivity analysis shows that the effectiveness of contact tracing is negatively impacted by the timing and overall percent of asymptomatic cases. Overall, the results suggest that if contact tracing is to be effective, it must be fast, accurate, and accompanied by other interventions like mask-wearing to drive down the average R 0 .
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it