MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4286541445 · doi:10.4018/jdm.305731

Fighting Pandemics with Physical Distancing Management Technologies

2022· article· en· W4286541445 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

VenueJournal of Database Management · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Canadian institutionsHEC Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DistancingSocial distance2019-20 coronavirus outbreakBusinessComputer scienceComputer securityRisk analysis (engineering)Infectious disease (medical specialty)MedicineVirologyDiseaseOutbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As COVID-19 continues to wreak havoc in everyday lives, the need to limit the spread of the virus remains a challenge, even with advances in medical knowledge, patient care, and vaccine development and distribution. Furthermore, COVID-19 is one in a recent series of airborne diseases, and probably not the last, given the ongoing encroachment of humans into animal habitat. This paper addresses the challenge of managing physical distancing, a highly effective, yet unnatural and contentious, mitigation strategy against infectious diseases. It presents a Pandemic Tech Stack and proposes that physical distancing management technologies are underutilized to fight pandemics. The latter can help ensure that people remain apart when they need to, support the transfer of activities to an online format, and, ultimately, facilitate the gradual reopening of our economies. The challenges associated with the development and use of these technologies are identified and discussed from both the technical and socio-psychological perspectives.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.894
Threshold uncertainty score0.566

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.233 · 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