Analysis of Spatiotemporal Characteristics and Influencing Factors for the Aid Events of COVID-19 Based on GDELT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The uncertainty of COVID-19 and the spatial inequality of anti-pandemic materials have made international aid an important means for many countries to cope with this global public health crisis. It is of far-reaching significance to analyze the spatiotemporal characteristics and influencing factors of international aid events for the global joint fight against COVID-19 and the sustainability of global public health business. The data on aid events from 23 January 2020 to 31 October 2021, were from the GDELT database. China, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada were selected as the study objects because they provided more aid. Their spatiotemporal characteristics of main aid flows, the response characteristics of the aid requests, and the characteristics of verbal aid to cash in were studied using spatial statistical analysis methods. The influencing factors of aid allocation also were studied by regression analysis. The results found that: the international aid flow of each country was consistent in spatial distribution, mainly to countries with severe pandemics and neighboring countries. However, there were differences in the recipients. China mainly aided developing countries, while the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada mainly aided developed countries. Relatively speaking, China was more responsive to aid requests and more aggressive in cashing in on verbal aid. The countries considered the impact of their economic interests when they planned to aid. At the same time, there were obvious “bandwagon effect” and “small country tendency” on the aid events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".