Leveraging Artificial Intelligence and Big Data to Optimize COVID-19 Clinical Public Health and Vaccination Roll-Out Strategies in Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
COVID-19 is imposing massive health, social and economic costs. While many developed countries have started vaccinating, most African nations are waiting for vaccine stocks to be allocated and are using clinical public health (CPH) strategies to control the pandemic. The emergence of variants of concern (VOC), unequal access to the vaccine supply and locally specific logistical and vaccine delivery parameters, add complexity to national CPH strategies and amplify the urgent need for effective CPH policies. Big data and artificial intelligence machine learning techniques and collaborations can be instrumental in an accurate, timely, locally nuanced analysis of multiple data sources to inform CPH decision-making, vaccination strategies and their staged roll-out. The Africa-Canada Artificial Intelligence and Data Innovation Consortium (ACADIC) has been established to develop and employ machine learning techniques to design CPH strategies in Africa, which requires ongoing collaboration, testing and development to maximize the equity and effectiveness of COVID-19-related CPH interventions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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".