Mathematical modeling to study the interactions of two risk populations in COVID-19 spread in Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<abstract><p>The use of vaccines has always been controversial. Individuals in society may have different opinions about the benefits of vaccines. As a result, some people decide to get vaccinated, while others decide otherwise. The conflicting opinions about vaccinations have a significant impact on the spread of a disease and the dynamics of an epidemic. This study proposes a mathematical model of COVID-19 to understand the interactions of two populations: the low risk population and the high risk population, with two preventive measures. Unvaccinated individuals with chronic diseases are classified as high risk population while the rest are a low risk population. Preventive measures used by low risk group include vaccination (pharmaceutical way), while for the high risk population they include wearing masks, social distancing and regular hand washing (non-pharmaceutical ways). The susceptible and infected sub-populations in both the low risk and the high risk groups were studied in detail through calculations of the effective reproduction number, model analysis, and numerical simulations. Our results show that the introduction of vaccination in the low risk population will significantly reduce infections in both subgroups.</p></abstract>
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".