Impacts of observation frequency on proximity contact data and modeled transmission dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Transmission of many communicable diseases depends on proximity contacts among humans. Modeling the dynamics of proximity contacts can help determine whether an outbreak is likely to trigger an epidemic. While the advent of commodity mobile devices has eased the collection of proximity contact data, battery capacity and associated costs impose tradeoffs between the observation frequency and scanning duration used for contact detection. The choice of observation frequency should depend on the characteristics of a particular pathogen and accompanying disease. We downsampled data from five contact network studies, each measuring participant-participant contact every 5 minutes for durations of four or more weeks. These studies included a total of 284 participants and exhibited different community structures. We found that for epidemiological models employing high-resolution proximity data, both the observation method and observation frequency configured to collect proximity data impact the simulation results. This impact is subject to the population's characteristics as well as pathogen infectiousness. By comparing the performance of two observation methods, we found that in most cases, half-hourly Bluetooth discovery for one minute can collect proximity data that allows agent-based transmission models to produce a reasonable estimation of the attack rate, but more frequent Bluetooth discovery is preferred to model individual infection risks or for highly transmissible pathogens. Our findings inform the empirical basis for guidelines to inform data collection that is both efficient and effective.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".