MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376286902 · doi:10.1016/j.fm.2023.104297

SARS-CoV-2 transmission modes: Why and how contamination occurs around shared meals and drinks?

2023· review· en· W4376286902 on OpenAlexaff
Aure Saulnier, Jean-Michel Wendling, Benoit Hermant, Didier Lepelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Microbiology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicInfection Control and Ventilation
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransmission (telecommunications)HygienePandemicSocial distanceSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Environmental healthOutbreakCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Hand washingAirborne transmissionMedicineVirologyEngineeringInfectious disease (medical specialty)Telecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In spite of prevention measures enacted all over the world to control the COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, including mask wearing, social distancing, hand hygiene, vaccination, and other precautions, the SARS-CoV-2 virus continues to spread globally at an unabated rate of about 1 million cases per day. The specificities of superspreading events as well as evidence of human-to-human, human-to-animal and animal-to-human transmission, indoors or outdoors, raise questions about a possibly neglected viral transmission route. In addition to inhaled aerosols, which are already recognized as key contributors to transmission, the oral route represents a strong candidate, in particular when meals and drinks are shared. In this review, we intend to discuss that significant quantities of virus dispersed by large droplets during discussions at festive gatherings could explain group contamination either directly or indirectly after deposition on surfaces, food, drinks, cutlery, and several other soiled vectors. We suggest that hand hygiene and sanitary practices around objects brought to the mouth and food also need to be taken into account in order to curb transmission.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood MicrobiologySame topicInfection Control and VentilationFrench-language works237,207