MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322618817 · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0000980

Quasi-experimental evaluation of national border closures on COVID-19 transmission

2023· article· en· W4322618817 on OpenAlexafffund
Mathieu J. P. Poirier, Susan Rogers Van Katwyk, Gigi Lin, Steven J. Hoffman

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS Global Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsImpactCentre for Global Health ResearchMcMaster UniversityYork University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of CanadaPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Transmission (telecommunications)Robustness (evolution)Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)GeographyDevelopment economicsEconomicsComputer scienceMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)BiologyTelecommunicationsDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With over 200 pandemic threats emerging every year, the efficacy of closing national borders to control the transmission of disease in the first months of a pandemic remains a critically important question. Previous studies offer conflicting evidence for the potential effects of these closures on COVID-19 transmission and no study has yet empirically evaluated the global impact of border closures using quasi-experimental methods and real-world data. We triangulate results from interrupted time-series analysis, meta-regression, coarsened exact matching, and an extensive series of robustness checks to evaluate the effect of 166 countries' national border closures on the global transmission of COVID-19. Total border closures banning non-essential travel from all countries and (to a lesser extent) targeted border closures banning travel from specific countries had some effect on temporarily slowing COVID-19 transmission in those countries that implemented them. In contrast to these country-level impacts, the global sum of targeted border closures implemented by February 5, 2020 was not sufficient to slow global COVID-19 transmission, but the sum of total border closures implemented by March 19, 2020 did achieve this effect. Country-level results were highly heterogeneous, with early implementation and border closures so broadly targeted that they resemble total border closures improving the likelihood of slowing the pandemic's spread. Governments that can make productive use of extra preparation time and cannot feasibly implement less restrictive alternatives might consider enacting border closures. However, given their moderate and uncertain impacts and their significant harms, border closures are unlikely to be the best policy response for most countries and should only be deployed in rare circumstances and with great caution. All countries would benefit from global mechanisms to coordinate national decisions on border closures during pandemics.

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)0.064
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.104
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0640.104
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

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 head0.592
GPT teacher head0.572
Teacher spread0.020 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS Global Public HealthSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207