MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410197120 · doi:10.5430/jms.v16n1p1

Strategic Understanding of Symptom Variation and Long-Term Risks: A Data-Driven Perspective

2025· article· en· W4410197120 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yining Fan, Dongli Zhang, Jinhui Wu, Yucun Chen, Shihong Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management and Strategy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Research Topics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Term (time)Variation (astronomy)Risk analysis (engineering)Computer sciencePsychologyBusinessArtificial intelligencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding how individuals respond to infectious exposure and how symptom patterns evolve over time is critical for developing effective long-term management strategies. This study examines data from northern China to analyze symptom variation and the risk of chronic progression associated with delayed response. We apply data-driven models to explore how individual characteristics—such as occupation, age, and gender—are associated with different symptom profiles and long-term outcomes. Our findings suggest that individuals engaged in agriculture, animal handling, and related sectors are significantly less likely to experience high-fever symptoms. Additionally, younger individuals and females tend to exhibit higher peak body temperatures during acute phases. Importantly, delays in response management correlate strongly with an increased likelihood of long-term complications, while general supportive actions—even without specific identification of the underlying cause—can help mitigate chronic progression. These insights contribute to more effective planning, resource prioritization, and decision-making for better strategic management of complex symptom-based conditions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.870
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.295
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.182 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management and StrategySame topicMental Health Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207