MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4211173190 · doi:10.1016/j.epidem.2022.100547

Challenges in estimation, uncertainty quantification and elicitation for pandemic modelling

2022· article· en· W4211173190 on OpenAlexaff
Ben Swallow, Paul Birrell, Joshua Blake, Mark A. Burgman, Peter Challenor, Luc E. Coffeng, A. P. Dawid, Daniela De Angelis, Michael Goldstein, Victoria Hemming, Glenn Marion, Trevelyan J. McKinley, Christopher E. Overton, Jasmina Panovska‐Griffiths, Lorenzo Pellis, Will Probert, Katriona Shea, Daniel Antunes Maciel Villela, Ian Vernon

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesResearch EnglandMedical Research CouncilNational Science FoundationRoyal SocietyEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUK Research and InnovationAlan Turing InstituteRural and Environment Science and Analytical Services DivisionScottish GovernmentConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoZonMwIsaac Newton Institute for Mathematical SciencesWellcome Trust
KeywordsEstimationPandemicComputer scienceInferenceJudgementCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Data scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)Expert elicitationPoint estimationUncertainty quantification2019-20 coronavirus outbreakRisk analysis (engineering)Data miningMachine learningArtificial intelligenceDiseaseMedicineStatisticsEngineeringPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The estimation of parameters and model structure for informing infectious disease response has become a focal point of the recent pandemic. However, it has also highlighted a plethora of challenges remaining in the fast and robust extraction of information using data and models to help inform policy. In this paper, we identify and discuss four broad challenges in the estimation paradigm relating to infectious disease modelling, namely the Uncertainty Quantification framework, data challenges in estimation, model-based inference and prediction, and expert judgement. We also postulate priorities in estimation methodology to facilitate preparation for 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 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)0.108
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.266
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1080.266
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0100.015
Open science0.0040.008
Research integrity0.0050.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.644
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations57
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemicsSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207