The Effectiveness of Table-Top Exercises in Improving Pandemic Crisis Preparedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The World Health Organization carried out a global survey in 2018 to ascertain the level of preparedness for pandemic influenza. It was discovered that simulation exercises to test national pandemic influenza preparedness plans were carried out in the previous 5 years, by 42 out of the 104 countries that completed the survey. The table-top exercise (TTX) being the preferred format, with 86% of the countries using them. Although no table-top exercise can convey a realistic picture of a pandemic, they can be used to assess plans, policies, and procedures, clarify roles and responsibilities, and identify resource gaps in an operational environment. However, table-top exercises are only effective if they are properly designed, carefully conducted, fully evaluated, and most importantly, the results and recommendations identified are actually implemented. TTXs used as part of preparedness for pandemics are not cost free, a failure to implement the lessons learned from them can have both human and economic consequences. To understand the value of TTXs, a sample of national and large scale TTXs are examined in an effort to identify the effectiveness of table-top exercises, as a part of improving pandemic crisis preparedness.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".