The Early Response to the Coronavirus-Surveys in Southern Texas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate if Southern Texas communities were prepared in their awareness and knowledge of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in timed snapshots as the pandemic unfolded. Two assessment surveys were implemented utilizing the Coronavirus Awareness and Preparedness Scale (CAPS) in March and April 2020, respectively. A convenience sample of university faculty in Southern Texas was used. Responses to survey questions changed significantly in the one-month timeframe. Respondents' perception of the COVID-19 threat increased dramatically from March to April, while their perceived preparedness facing the COVID-19 also increased tremendously. The recognized benefits of mask-wearing were limited in both March and April. Males and older people aged 55 and above had significantly lower awareness of the COVID-19 in March (p< 0.05) and may need more attention at the early phases of a pandemic. The increased availability of COVID-19 information through public health agencies led to the increased awareness of COVID-19. When facing a pandemic, both healthcare education and health care policy approaches are essential in addressing the containment and the eradication of COVID-19.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".