A Public Health Perspective on HPV Vaccination: Response to The HPV Vaccination Campaign: A Project of Moral Regulation in an Era of Biopolitics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Connell and Hunt’s critique (2010) raises important questions and concerns about human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination in Canada. We offer a public health perspective on several key issues, including the merits of implementing population-based HPV vaccination programs in Canada; the time-sensitivity of HPV vaccination; and, the non-judgmental approach to sexual health promotion for youth championed by Canadian public health organizations. Résumé La critique de Connell et Hunt (2010) soulève d'importantes questions et préoccupations concernant la vaccination contre le virus du papillome humain (VPH) au Canada. Nous offrons une perspective de santé publique sur quelques questions clés, y compris la raisonnement pour des programmes systématiques de vaccination contre le VPH au Canada, la sensibilité au temps de la vaccination HPV, et l'approche non moralisateur àla promotion de la santé sexuelle pour les jeunes adoptés par les agences de santé publique canadiennes.
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 | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.087 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".