MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3214374966 · doi:10.1101/2021.11.15.468603

Estimating the Mosquito Density in Guangzhou City, China

2021· preprint· en· W3214374966 on OpenAlexaff
Meili Li, Xian Zhang, Junling Ma

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMosquito-borne diseases and control
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNatural Science Foundation of Shanghai
KeywordsMarkov chain Monte CarloAedes aegyptiIndex (typography)ChinaEnvironmental scienceMarkov chainGeographyStatisticsMonte Carlo methodMathematicsBiologyEcologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mosquito is a vector of many diseases. Predicting the trend of mosquito density is important for early warning and control of mosquito diseases. In this paper, we fit a discrete time mosquito model developed by Gong et al. in 2011, which considers the immature and adult stages, and weather dependent model parameters, to the Breteau Index and Bite Index data for Aedes aegypti in Guangzhou city, China in 2014, as well as the weather data for average temperature, precipitation, evaporation and daylight for the same period. We estimated the model parameters using the Markov Chain Monte-Carlo (MCMC) method. We find that many parameters are not identifiable. We revise and simplify the model so that the parameters of our new model are identifiable. Our results indicate that the model predicted mosquito prevalence agrees well with data. We then use the fitted parameter values against the Breteau Index and Bite Index data for Guangzhou city in 2017 and 2018, and show that the estimated parameter values are applicable for other seasons.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.204
Threshold uncertainty score0.406

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicMosquito-borne diseases and control→French-language works237,207→