Knowledge and public health practices during lockdown towards COVID-19 in Bangladesh
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study aimed to assess the role of having knowledge and essential hygiene practices to prevent coronavirus pandemic and to find out the relationship between people’s knowledge and good hygiene practices with socio-demographic variables during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic situation. In this study, data were collected from 248 respondents for cross-sectional study using voluntary response sampling from April, 30 2020 to May, 30 2020, during lockdown situation in Bangladesh. Descriptive statistics were done to calculate the frequencies and percentages by using Stata SE 14.2 (StataCorp). Chi-square was performed at the significance level of 5% to find the factors which were associated with knowledge about COVID-19. After knowing about COVID-19, 86.29% respondents had taken preventive measures and 71.37% respondents had agreed to stay at home. Among the respondents, 47.98% were involved in services and were positively associated with good general knowledge of preventive practices. Our present findings indicated significant relationship between good general knowledge and practice of general people towards COVID-19 outbreak in Bangladesh. The findings of the study are helpful for the researchers and the population to follow all good promotional practices for preventive measures against coronavirus.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".