The main strategies adopted by the Toronto government in the COVID-19 pandemic: epidemiology study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objetive To analyze the epidemiological data and the main government measures adopted against the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods Epidemiologic study built with data from the integrated Public Health Information System (iPHIS) and the official Government of Canada website in a time frame from January to July 2020. Results Toronto presents the first case of COVID 19 on January 23rd and until July 1st, 2020, it records a number of 14 468 cases, 12.574 recovered cases, 1.100 deaths and 171 institutional outbreaks. About 53,04% of the cases were female, aged 40-59 years (29,81%), followed by 20-39 years (28,37%). Contagion forms were analyzed: 56,40% had close contact with a case, 24,23% in the community, 10,30% in health services, 5,58% while traveling and 3,49% in institutions. Economic and financial actions, travel measures, support for Canadians abroad, public education, research and technology were developed. Conclusion The COVID-19 is a serious threat to public health around the world. Canada has a strong history of pandemic planning and has worked together with public health for its developed actions to become adaptable based on evolution, outbreak containment and prevention of further spread.
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 | 0.019 | 0.066 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".