Actionable Guidelines for Promoting Equity, Diversity and Inclusion in Infectious Disease Modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infectious disease modelling plays a critical role in understanding and addressing global health challenges. However, the field faces persistent barriers related to Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI), including language and cultural biases, underrepresentation of certain groups and systemic inequities in access to resources and opportunities. This paper identifies key challenges and proposes actionable guidelines to foster inclusivity, collaboration and innovation in the field. Unlike generic EDI guidelines, we provide context-specific recommendations for three key settings in infectious disease research: team dynamics, conferences and virtual collaborations. We emphasise practical steps that can be taken such as diversifying conference organising committees, accommodating participants' needs and integrating mentorship programmes. While recognising that EDI initiatives must be tailored to specific cultural and institutional settings, we highlight the importance of measurable progress through continuous reflection, assessment and adaptation. By embracing EDI principles, the field of infectious disease modelling can better harness the strengths of a diverse global community, leading to more equitable science, more representative models and improved health outcomes worldwide.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.367 | 0.463 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.016 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.028 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.005 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".