Adaptive changes in sexual behavior in the high‐risk population in response to human monkeypox transmission in Canada can help control the outbreak: Insights from a two‐group, two‐route epidemic model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Monkeypox, a zoonotic disease, is emerging as a potential sexually transmitted infection/disease, with underlying transmission mechanisms still unclear. We devised a risk-structured, compartmental model, incorporating sexual behavior dynamics. We compared different strategies targeting the high-risk population: a scenario of control policies geared toward the use of condoms and/or sexual abstinence (robust control strategy) with risk compensation behavior change, and a scenario of control strategies with behavior change in response to the doubling rate (adaptive control strategy). Monkeypox's basic reproduction number is 1.464, 0.0066, and 1.461 in the high-risk, low-risk, and total populations, respectively, with the high-risk group being the major driver of monkeypox spread. Policies imposing condom use or sexual abstinence need to achieve a 35% minimum compliance rate to stop further transmission, while a combination of both can curb the spread with 10% compliance to abstinence and 25% to condom use. With risk compensation, the only option is to impose sexual abstinence by at least 35%. Adaptive control is more effective than robust control where the daily sexual contact number is reduced proportionally and remains constant thereafter, shortening the time to epidemic peak, lowering its size, facilitating disease attenuation, and playing a key role in controlling the current outbreak.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".