MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307508681 · doi:10.1029/2021gh000520

Association Between Weather Parameters and SARS‐CoV‐2 Confirmed Cases in Two South African Cities

2022· article· en· W4307508681 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Ogunjo, Adeyemi Olusola, Israel R. Orimoloye

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoHealth · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)CapeSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakGeographyAir pollutionLagEnvironmental scienceDemographyOutbreakEcologyMedicineBiologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several approaches have been used in the race against time to mitigate the spread and impact of COVID-19. In this study, we investigated the role of temperature, relative humidity, and particulate matter in the spread of COVID-19 cases within two densely populated cities of South Africa-Pretoria and Cape Town. The role of different levels of COVID-19 restrictions in the air pollution levels, obtained from the Purple Air Network, of the two cities were also considered. Our results suggest that 26.73% and 43.66% reduction in PM2.5 levels were observed in Cape Town and Pretoria respectively for no lockdown (Level 0) to the strictest lockdown level (Level 5). Furthermore, our results showed a significant relationship between particulate matter and COVID-19 in the two cities. Particulate matter was found to be a good predictor, based on the significance of causality test, of COVID-19 cases in Pretoria with a lag of 7 days and more. This suggests that the effect of particulate matter on the number of cases can be felt after 7 days and beyond in Pretoria.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.436
Teacher spread0.140 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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