COVID-19 contagion across remote communities in tropical forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding COVID-19 contagion among poor populations is hampered by a paucity of data, and especially so in remote rural communities with limited access to transportation, communication, and health services. We report on the first study on COVID-19 contagion across rural communities without road access. We conducted telephone surveys with over 400 riverine communities in the Peruvian Amazon in the early phase of the pandemic. During the first wave (April-June, 2020), COVID-19 spread from cities to most communities through public and private river transportation according to their remoteness. The initial spread was delayed by transportation restrictions but at the same time was driven in unintended ways by government social assistance. During the second wave (August, 2020), although people's self-protective behaviors (promoted through communication access) helped to suppress the contagion, people responded to transportation restrictions and social assistance in distinct ways, leading to greater contagion among Indigenous communities than mestizo communities. As such, the spatial contagion during the early phase of the pandemic in tropical forests was shaped by river transportation and social behaviors. These novel findings have important implications for research and policies on pandemics in rural areas.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".