MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6986728526

Rapid review of public health guidance on physical distancing in the context of COVID-19

2020· report· en· W6986728526 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library) · 2020
Typereport
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistancingPublic healthContext (archaeology)PandemicSocial distance
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

 Guidance documents relating to physical distancing measures during the COVID-19 pandemic from ten countries and two international public health bodies were considered in this review.
\n There was some variation in the guidance issued (across different settings) in relation to the recommended safe physical distance required to reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission:
\no Public health agencies in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland, the United States and Canada currently recommend maintaining a physical distance of 2 metres (or 6 feet) for the general public, where possible.
\no A physical distance of 1.5 metres is recommended in Switzerland and Australia.
\no Public health agencies in Norway and Singapore, and the WHO, recommend maintaining a physical distance of at least 1 metre in non-healthcare settings. In some higher risk settings or activities, physical distancing of more than 1 metre is advised. The ECDC advises a physical distancing of at least 1 metre when using public transport.
\no Public Health England has advised that 1 metre, in addition to risk mitigation measures, is sufficient in selected settings such as bars, restaurants, and close contact services.
\no There is currently no requirement for physical distancing in New Zealand as the disease is contained.
\n Physical distancing recommendations in education and childcare settings acknowledge that adhering to physical distancing measures with young children may be more challenging, but advise that physical contact should be minimised, where possible.
\n In general, the guidance on physical distancing recommends that appropriate risk mitigation strategies should be implemented when physical distancing measures cannot be consistently applied.
\n A limited number of frameworks have been developed to facilitate an assessment of the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in different settings. All frameworks recommend the use of additional risk mitigation strategies when safe physical distancing guidance cannot be consistently applied.
\n A physical distance of within 1 to 2 metres of a confirmed case of COVID-19 was outlined in most definitions of ‘close contact’. Other considerations included the duration of exposure, the setting, the nature of the contact (that is, direct or indirect) and the timing of the contact during the clinical course of infection of the confirmed case.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.087
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.259 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLenus, The Irish Health Repository (Dr Steevens Hospital Library)French-language works237,207