Systematically omitting indoor air quality: sub-standard guidance for shelters, group homes and long-term care in Ontario during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Scientific evidence suggests that COVID-19 is transmitted through the air, and can be mitigated using indoor air quality measures such as ventilation and filtration. We set out to explore how Public Health Ontario (PHO) responded to this evidence. PHO is mandated by legislation to share “scientific and technical advice and support” and “contribute to efforts to reduce health inequities” in Ontario, Canada, a jurisdiction of more than 14 million people (Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion Act, 2007). We were particularly interested in how PHO addressed indoor air quality measures in the context of guidance developed for communal facilities such as long-term care homes and congregate settings (e.g. shelters, group homes, detention centres). We reviewed PHO’s public, written COVID-19 guidance specifically designed for long-term care and congregate settings, and published or revised between January, 2021 and October, 2021. We also compared PHO’s COVID-19 checklists for long-term care and congregate settings to PHO’s COVID-19 checklists for schools, camps and doctor’s offices. We found no references to indoor air quality measures in any guidance documents specifically designed for long-term care and congregate settings, including COVID-19 checklists. We did, however, find references to indoor air quality measures in COVID-19 checklists for schools, summer camps and doctor’s offices. We conclude that PHO has provided sub-standard COVID-19 guidance to long-term care and congregate settings, putting workers and residents at greater risk of illness and death, and exacerbating health inequities in Ontario.
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 | 0.016 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".