The role of gender and other socio-economic factors in the adoption of the contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) vaccine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper focuses on the role of gender and other socio-economic factors in the adoption of the contagious bovine pleuropneumonia (CBPP) vaccine.The study reported here responds to three questions: What socio-economic factors affect the adoption of the CBPP vaccine?How do they affect the adoption?What can be done to enhance the adoption of CBPP?The study pays special attention to gender as a distinct socio-economic category because communities often use gender to define differences between women and men, and to justify, sustain and reinforce inequalities between women and men with the resultant subservience of women.Answers to these questions were obtained through a review of literature on CBPP and technology (including vaccine) adoption studies.Technology, including vaccine, adoption is gendered, with women tending to adopt less than men, especially in terms of consumer associated drivers (accessibility, affordability and acceptability) referred to by the authors as the 3As.Other socio-economic factors, such as class and geographical location appear to have a greater influence than gender in terms of political and market based drivers of vaccine adoption.Adoption of CBPP vaccine can be enhanced through one or a combination of up to four strategies which include: reduction of prices through reduction of cost in production and subsidies by government and philanthropic projects especially in times of enhanced and unpredicted demand; convincing evidence based demonstration of benefits of vaccination over its alternatives using methods such as return on investment for every dollar used; gender sensitive advocacy strategies and messages; and using innovative ways such as carrying out human and livestock vaccination campaigns, simultaneously, in pastoral communities living in marginal areas.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".