Target reproduction numbers for time-delayed population systems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the field of population dynamics, target reproduction number is a crucial metric that dictates the necessary control efforts for achieving specific prevention, intervention, or control goals. Recently, the concept of the target reproduction number has undergone significant extensions. Lewis et al. [1] presented a general framework of the target reproduction number for nonnegative matrices, and Wang and Zhao [2] further developed it to positive operators on an ordered Banach space. These extensions encompass fundamental metrics like basic reproduction number and type reproduction number, along with other threshold parameters from existing literature, elucidating their roles in population control. In the current paper, we establish the theory of target reproduction number for a large class of compartmental population models with time delay in the case where control is targeted toward either new infection/production or internal evolution/transition. It turns out that the target reproduction number of the original time-delayed population model can be viewed as a basic reproduction number of some modified system. At the end, we apply these analytic results to three epidemic models, which enhances our theoretical understanding and provides valuable insights for effective strategies in population-based interventions and control measures.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".