MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7037153070

COVID-19 Survey in the Municipality of Anchorage, July 16-18: Highlights

2020· report· en· W7037153070 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks - UA (University of Alaska System) · 2020
Typereport
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhoneDistancingQuarter (Canadian coin)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Living roomClothing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A population-based cell phone survey on COVID-19 was conducted among Anchorage residents (N = 600) from July 16 to July 18, 2020. This was the second population-based cell phone survey conducted in the Municipality on COVID-19; the first one (N = 996) was conducted May 6-10, 2020. Between the first and second population-based cell phone surveys, four online surveys were conducted every two weeks with a panel of respondents from the first cell-phone survey. In total, six surveys have been done in Anchorage so far. Key findings from the most recent survey are as follows:  Most of the respondents reported practicing physical distancing and good hygiene. o Most (74%) did not have any visitors in their home the day before the survey. o Most (74%) did not have physical contact of any kind with someone who didn’t live with them. o While most (66%) reported not going to or attending events indoors (i.e., church, bar, restaurant, house party) last weekend, this distancing behavior was abided by less than the previous ones listed above. o Most (79%) reported wearing their mask all or most of the time when they were outside their home. o Most (68%) reported wearing a mask all or most of the time when they were within six feet of someone not from their household. o Most (76%) reported washing or sanitizing their hands every time or most of the time after touching things that people outside their household may have touched.  Most reported not being worried or only slightly worried about: transportation (88%), having enough to eat (84%), losing employment (78%), household finances (71%), and not being able to connect with friends and family (62%).  Most reported being worried or very worried about: sending children back to school (64%), other friends and family members being infected by coronavirus (56%), and themselves or members of their household being infected by coronavirus (52%).  Most (75%) felt that the Municipality’s response to the outbreak has been good or very good  Most (84%) felt that the Municipality’s policies related to coronavirus have been clear or very clear  Most (92%) strongly support or mildly support the Municipality’s mask mandate.  Most (53%) reported that they are often or sometimes confused by information on COVID-19. COVID-19 RELATED RISK BEHAVIORS increased among those who: o Had lower perceived threat of COVID-19  Those who had significantly lower perceived threat of COVID-19 included men and those with lower perceived susceptibility to COVID-19.  Those with lower perceived susceptibility included men and whites. o Reported lower perceived benefits of wearing a mask

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0250.006

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 head0.159
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.138 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks - UA (University of Alaska System)Same topicEthnobotanical and Medicinal Plants StudiesFrench-language works237,207