MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407121564 · doi:10.1016/j.mbs.2025.109384

Target reproduction numbers for time-delayed population systems

2025· article· en· W4407121564 on OpenAlexafffund
Xueying Wang, Xiao‐Qiang Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Biosciences · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology Models
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReproductionPopulationBiologyDemographyEcologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.833
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical BiosciencesSame topicMathematical and Theoretical Epidemiology and Ecology ModelsFrench-language works237,207