MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981739046 · doi:10.1177/0963662513495149

Public media communications about H1N1, risk perceptions and immunization behaviours: A Quebec–France comparison

2013· article· en· W1981739046 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Understanding of Science · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
FundersCentre National de la Recherche ScientifiqueMcGill University
KeywordsCredibilityRisk communicationPerceptionPublic healthRisk perceptionPandemicAgency (philosophy)Health communicationPublic relationsPopulationOrder (exchange)Compliance (psychology)Environmental healthPolitical scienceBusinessPsychologyMedicineSocial psychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)SociologyNursingDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

During the H1N1 pandemic, governments tailored their communications plans in order to influence risk perception and promote public compliance with the public health plan measures. Considering the volume and the content of calls to flu information centres as indicators of the public risk perception, this mixed method study compares the relation between public communications, risk perception and immunization behaviour in Quebec and France. Results suggest that advocating for clear information and coordination between health authorities and the media promotes adherence to preventive behaviour. However, over-exaggerating the risks and minimizing the population's agency may undermine health authority credibility.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0010.005
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.187 · 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