MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405023288 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2407308121

Social dilemma of nonpharmaceutical interventions: Determinants of dynamic compliance and behavioral shifts

2024· article· en· W4405023288 on OpenAlexaff
Alina Glaubitz, Feng Fu

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCOVID-19 epidemiological studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of HealthBill and Melinda Gates Foundation
KeywordsSocial distanceDilemmaPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)MedicineCompliance (psychology)PopulationEnvironmental healthPsychologySocial psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)GeographyInfectious disease (medical specialty)DiseasePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In fighting infectious diseases posing a global health threat, ranging from influenza to Zika, nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI), such as social distancing and face covering, remain mitigation measures public health can resort to. However, the success of NPI lies in sufficiently high levels of collective compliance, otherwise giving rise to recurrent infections that are not only driven by pathogen evolution but also changing vigilance in the population. Here, we show that compliance with each NPI measure can be highly dynamic and context-dependent during an ongoing epidemic, where individuals may prefer one to another or even do nothing, leading to intricate temporal switching behavior of NPI adoptions. By characterizing dynamic regimes through the perceived costs of NPI measures and their effectiveness in particular regarding face covering and social distancing, our work offers insights into overcoming barriers in NPI adoptions.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.573
GPT teacher head0.574
Teacher spread0.001 · 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

Citations14
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicCOVID-19 epidemiological studiesFrench-language works237,207