A superposition model of droplet exposure to SARS-CoV-2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relative role of droplets and aerosols in SARS-CoV-2 infection has been debated. We seek to quantify virion exposure in an enclosed space via short-range and long-range airborne transmission to inform public health decision making. Data from five published studies were analyzed to predict relative exposure at distances of 1 m and farther. A droplet size of 8 µm was used to compare data from published studies, while not defining particle transport behavior in terms of size. Results at 1 m from an infectious individual were a boundary condition to model infection risk at shorter and longer distances. At all distances, exposure was treated as the sum of all air routes. Number of virions was assumed proportional to particle volume. The largest exposure occurred close to the infectious individual, and out to approximately 1 m, direct deposition and airborne routes both contributed. Farther away, the largest exposure was airborne. For one model, short-range exposure disappeared at 1.8 m. Policy concerning physical distancing for infection reduction relies on exposure as a function of distance, yet within this construct, deposition varies. This two-fold distance effect can be used to evaluate control technology such as plexiglass barriers, masking, and ventilation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".