Do regionally targeted lockdowns alter movement to non-lockdown regions? Evidence from Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Regionally targeted interventions are being used by governments to slow the spread of COVID-19. In areas where free movement is not being actively restricted, there is uncertainty about how effective such regionally targeted interventions are due to the free movement of people between regions. We use mobile-phone network mobility data to test two hypotheses: 1) do regions targeted by exhibit increased outflows into other regions and 2) do regions targeted by interventions increase outflows specifically into areas with lesser restrictions. Our analysis focuses on two well-defined regionally targeted interventions in Ontario, Canada the first intervention as the first wave subsided (July 17, 2020) and the second intervention as we entered into new restrictions during the onset of the second wave (November 23, 2020). We use a difference-in-difference model to investigate hypothesis 1 and an interrupted time series model to investigate hypothesis 2, controlling for spatial effects (using a spatial-error model) in both cases. Our findings suggest that there that the regionally targeted interventions had a neutral effect (or no effect) on inter-regional mobility, with no significant differences associated with the interventions. We also found that overall inter-regional mobility was associated with socio-economic factors and the distance to the boundary of the intervention region. These findings are important as they should guide how governments design regionally targeted interventions (from a geographical perspective) considering observed patterns of mobility.
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 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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".