MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1838776397

Canada's Best Shot: Policies to Improve Childhood Immunization Coverage

2015· article· en· W1838776397 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Julie Erica Compton

Bibliographic record

VenueSummit (Simon Fraser University) · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShot (pellet)ImmunizationPolitical scienceComputer sciencePublic relationsMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite high coverage overall, routine childhood immunization coverage rates vary across Canada, and are in decline in some regions. Numerous systematic and social factors affect vaccine uptake, including access to healthcare services, vaccine hesitancy, and misinformation. Interviews with public health stakeholders, a review of international best practices in selected countries, and case studies of British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, and Ontario identify relative successes and limitations to inform potential policy interventions. This study assesses four policies: mobile immunization clinics, school reporting structures, provider incentives, and extended recall-reminder programs. While jurisdictions have improved accessibility of immunization services, further steps are needed to prompt behavioural change among hesitant parents of under-immunized children. To promote widespread immunization coverage, facilitate data collection, and enhance outbreak management, mobile outreach and immunization clinics are recommended, along with province-wide immunization requirements for school entry. Developing electronic immunization registries remains a foundational priority to target policies for under-vaccinated populations.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.942
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSummit (Simon Fraser University)→Same topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→