MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3202627776 · doi:10.1177/09622802211037079

Commentary on the use of the reproduction number <i>R</i> during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021· review· en· W3202627776 on OpenAlexafffund
Carolin Vegvari, Sam Abbott, Frank Ball, Ellen Brooks‐Pollock, Robert Challen, Benjamin Collyer, C. E. Dangerfield, Julia R. Gog, Katelyn M. Gostic, Jane M. Heffernan, T. Déirdre Hollingsworth, Valerie Isham, Eben Kenah, Denis Mollison, Jasmina Panovska‐Griffiths, Lorenzo Pellis, Gianpaolo Scalia Tomba, Robin N. Thompson, Pieter Trapman

Bibliographic record

VenueStatistical Methods in Medical Research · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsFields Institute for Research in Mathematical SciencesYork University
FundersMarsden FundNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMedical Research CouncilWellcomeRoyal SocietyEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchWellcome TrustJames S. McDonnell Foundation
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Basic reproduction numberMetric (unit)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)StatisticsComputer scienceMathematicsPopulationMedicineSociologyDemographyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OpenAlex records an abstract for this work, but it could not be fetched just now.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0100.003
Research integrity0.0240.047
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.861
GPT teacher head0.711
Teacher spread0.150 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations56
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueStatistical Methods in Medical Research→Same topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies→French-language works237,207→