MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387896425 · doi:10.2196/49560

Combatting SARS-CoV-2 With Digital Contact Tracing and Notification: Navigating Six Points of Failure

2023· review· en· W4387896425 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joanna Masel, James Petrie, Jason Bay, Wolfgang E. Ebbers, A. Sharan, Scott Leibrand, Andreas Gebhard, Samuel Zimmerman

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicCOVID-19 Digital Contact Tracing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact tracingImplementationTracingAutonomyComputer securityEvent (particle physics)Transmission (telecommunications)Internet privacyPartner notificationNotification systemComputer scienceMedicineTelecommunicationsWorld Wide WebCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Political scienceInfectious disease (medical specialty)Family medicineLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital contact tracing and notification were initially hailed as promising strategies to combat SARS-CoV-2; however, in most jurisdictions, they did not live up to their promise. To avert a given transmission event, both parties must have adopted the technology, it must detect the contact, the primary case must be promptly diagnosed, notifications must be triggered, and the secondary case must change their behavior to avoid the focal tertiary transmission event. If we approximate these as independent events, achieving a 26% reduction in the effective reproduction number Rt would require an 80% success rate at each of these 6 points of failure. Here, we review the 6 failure rates experienced by a variety of digital contact tracing and contact notification schemes, including Singapore’s TraceTogether, India’s Aarogya Setu, and leading implementations of the Google Apple Exposure Notification system. This leads to a number of recommendations, for example, that the narrative be framed in terms of user autonomy rather than user privacy, and that tracing/notification apps be multifunctional and integrated with testing, manual contact tracing, and the gathering of critical scientific data.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and SurveillanceSame topicCOVID-19 Digital Contact TracingFrench-language works237,207