Comparing regional and provincial-wide COVID-19 models with physical distancing in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<abstract><p>We study the effects of physical distancing measures for the spread of COVID-19 in regional areas within British Columbia, using the reported cases of the five provincial Health Authorities. Building on the Bayesian epidemiological model of Anderson et al. <sup>[<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="b1">1</xref>]</sup>, we propose a hierarchical regional Bayesian model with time-varying regional parameters between March to December of 2020. In the absence of COVID-19 variants and vaccinations during this period, we examine the regionalized basic reproduction number, modelled prevalence, relative reduction in contact due to physical distancing, and proportion of anticipated cases that have been tested and reported. We observe significant differences between the regional and provincial-wide models and demonstrate the hierarchical regional model can better estimate regional prevalence, especially in rural regions. These results indicate that it can be useful to apply similar regional models to other parts of Canada or other countries.</p></abstract>
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".