MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388194682 · doi:10.18280/mmep.100517

Mathematical Model by Using Logistic Regression to Investigate the COVID-19 Pandemic's Impact on Humans

2023· article· en· W4388194682 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Khawlah Hashim Hussain

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Logistic regressionPandemic2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)RegressionRegression analysisEconometricsStatisticsVirologyMathematicsMedicineInfectious disease (medical specialty)OutbreakInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has precipitated profound psychosocial disturbances and shifts in consumer behavior due to stress, uncertainty, and imposed social distancing measures.Consequently, an investigation was conducted to elucidate the pandemic's impact and inform potential mitigation strategies.A comprehensive online survey was undertaken, involving 239 participants, focusing primarily on vulnerable groups prone to developing Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression, such as children, college students, and healthcare workers.In addition, a logistic regression and multiple regression analyses were employed to examine the pandemic's influence on consumer spending behaviors across 12 sectors.Changes in spending constraints were evaluated using a t-test.Results indicated an increased likelihood of PTSD, anxiety, and depression among children, college students, and healthcare workers due to pandemic exposure.Furthermore, five dominant factors were found to significantly influence consumer behavior: availability of essentials, financial security, health concerns, public sentiment, and quality of purchasable goods.This study proposes that, during a pandemic, businesses should adapt their strategies in accordance with changing consumer behaviors to gain valuable market insight, boost sales, and accelerate the introduction of new products to the market.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.508
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.071 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207