MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211069963 · doi:10.1098/rsfs.2021.0072

COVID-19: the case for aerosol transmission

2022· review· en· W4211069963 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInterface Focus · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicAirborne transmissionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Transmission (telecommunications)PreparednessSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)AerosolOutbreakVirologyBioaerosolIndoor bioaerosolCoronavirusEnvironmental healthMedicineBiologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)MeteorologyGeographyComputer scienceDiseaseEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic is the most severe pandemic caused by a respiratory virus since the 1918 influenza pandemic. As is the case with other respiratory viruses, three modes of transmission have been invoked: contact (direct and through fomites), large droplets and aerosols. This narrative review makes the case that aerosol transmission is an important mode for COVID-19, through reviewing studies about bioaerosol physiology, detection of infectious SARS-CoV-2 in exhaled bioaerosols, prolonged SARS-CoV-2 infectivity persistence in aerosols created in the laboratory, detection of SARS-CoV-2 in air samples, investigation of outbreaks with manifest involvement of aerosols, and animal model experiments. SARS-CoV-2 joins influenza A virus as a virus with proven pandemic capacity that can be spread by the aerosol route. This has profound implications for the control of the current pandemic and for future pandemic 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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.316 · 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