The pros and cons of entry restrictions: are entry restrictions really effective in preventing the spread of SARS-CoV-2?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has rapidly spread worldwide, leading the World Health Organization to declare coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) a pandemic. To curb the unchecked spread of SARS-CoV-2 infection, most countries have enforced travel restrictions. However, it is debatable whether such restrictions are effective in containing infections and preventing pandemics. Rather, they may negatively impact economies and diplomatic relationships. Each government should conduct an extensive and appropriate analysis of its national economy, diplomatic status, and COVID-19 preparedness to decide whether it is best to restrict entering travelers. Even if travelers from other countries are allowed entry, extensive contact tracing is required to prevent the spread of COVID-19. In addition, governments can implement "travel bubbles," which allow the quarantine-free flow of people among countries with relatively low levels of community transmission. An accurate evaluation of the benefits and losses due to entry restrictions during the COVID-19 pandemic would be helpful in determining whether entry restrictions are an effective measure to reduce the spread of infection in future pandemics.
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 | 0.010 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".