Current status of immunization against anthrax: old vaccines may be here to stay for a while
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anthrax vaccination has become a 'hot' topic. On the one hand, fears that Iraq holds secret caches of anthrax-based weaponry, that other countries may be developing or may have developed similar devices, or that hard-line groups may make their own anthrax-based devices for bioterrorist attacks have focused official attention on the need for means of protection, principally, though, for the military. On the other hand, the unsolved issues of the Gulf War illnesses have left elements of doubt in the minds of some as to the possible role of anthrax (among other) vaccines in this syndrome, and have drawn attention to the shortage of pre-clinical, clinical, pharmacological and safety data on the existing UK and US anthrax vaccines. In the middle are those hotly debating the US and Canadian policies of mandatory anthrax immunization for military personnel or, in the case of the UK policy of voluntary immunization, simply voting with their feet. Compounding matters have been the publicized failures of the US vaccine production facility and the less publicized UK problems of supply. Meanwhile, those in genuine at-risk occupations are left unsure whether, if they can get the vaccine at all, they really want it. Despite two decades of elegant science aimed at formulating alternative vaccines to overcome all the problems of efficacy, safety and supply, such an alternative is at least five years away, and the current status is that we must live with the old vaccines or not vaccinate.
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 | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.010 |
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".