Lay people's interpretation of ethical values related to mass vaccination; the case of <scp>A</scp>(<scp>H1N1</scp>) vaccination campaign in the province of <scp>Q</scp>uebec (<scp>F</scp>rench <scp>C</scp>anada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pandemic influenza ethics frameworks are based on respect of values and principles such as regard for autonomy, responsibility, transparency, solidarity and social justice. However, very few studies have addressed the way in which the general population views these moral norms. OBJECTIVES: (i) To analyse the receptiveness of the population of French-speaking Quebecers to certain ethical principles promoted by public health authorities during the AH1N1 vaccination campaign. (ii) To add to the limited number of empirical studies that examine the population's perception of ethical values. DESIGN: Eight months after the end of the AH1N1 vaccination campaign in the Province of Quebec (Canada), 100 French-speaking Quebecers were assembled in ten focus groups. Discussions focussed on the level of respect shown by public health authorities for individual autonomy, the limits of appeals for solidarity, the balance between vaccination efficiency and social justice towards non-prioritized subpopulations, vaccination as a demonstration of civic duty and social responsibility. RESULTS: The population acknowledged a high level of individual responsibility towards family members and agreed to vaccination to protect children and ageing parents. However, the concepts of civic duty and solidarity did not elucidate unanimous support, despite the fact that social justice stood out as a dominant value of public morals. CONCLUSION: The ethical principles promoted in influenza pandemic ethics frameworks are subject to reinterpretation by the population. An ethic of public health must consider their understanding of the fundamental values that legitimize mass vaccination.
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 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".