MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2021763032 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2015.04.042

Health communication and vaccine hesitancy

2015· article· en· W2021763032 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsIzaak Walton Killam Health CentreDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth communicationSelection (genetic algorithm)Key (lock)Process (computing)Risk communicationImmunizationPlan (archaeology)Public relationsComputer sciencePsychologyKnowledge managementProcess managementMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)BusinessBiologyPolitical scienceImmunologyComputer securityArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health communication is an evolving field. There is evidence that communication can be an effective tool, if utilized in a carefully planned and integrated strategy, to influence the behaviours of populations on a number of health issues, including vaccine hesitancy. Experience has shown that key points to take into account in devising and implementing a communication plan include: (i) it is necessary to be proactive; (ii) communication is a two-way process; (iii) knowledge is important but not enough to change behaviour; and (iv) communication tools are available and can be selected and used creatively to promote vaccine uptake. A communication strategy, incorporating an appropriate selection of the available communication tools, should be an integral part of every immunization programme, addressing the specific factors that influence hesitancy in the target 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.291 · 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