MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225401966 · doi:10.1098/rsos.212022

Source terms for benchmarking models of SARS-CoV-2 transmission via aerosols and droplets

2022· review· en· W4225401966 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Stettler, Robert T. Nishida, Pedro M. de Oliveira, Léo C. C. Mesquita, Tyler J. Johnson, Edwin R. Galea, Angus Grandison, J. Ewer, David Carruthers, D. Sykes, Prashant Kumar, Eldad Avital, Asiri Obeysekara, Denis Doorly, Yannis Hardalupas, David C. Green, Simon Coldrick, Simon T. Parker, Adam Boies

Bibliographic record

VenueRoyal Society Open Science · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsBenchmarkingTransmission (telecommunications)Airborne transmissionSet (abstract data type)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Computer scienceDisease transmissionEnvironmental scienceBiologyMedicineVirologyDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is ongoing and rapid advancement in approaches to modelling the fate of exhaled particles in different environments relevant to disease transmission. It is important that models are verified by comparison with each other using a common set of input parameters to ensure that model differences can be interpreted in terms of model physics rather than unspecified differences in model input parameters. In this paper, we define parameters necessary for such benchmarking of models of airborne particles exhaled by humans and transported in the environment during breathing and speaking.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.099

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.017

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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations15
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRoyal Society Open ScienceSame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207