MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2344364881 · doi:10.1080/10410236.2015.1089466

Giving Boys a Shot: The HPV Vaccine’s Portrayal in Canadian Newspapers

2016· article· en· W2344364881 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Samara Perez, Claire Fedoruk, Gilla K. Shapiro, Zeev Rosberger

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Communication · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGenital wartsCervical cancerMedicineNewspaperFamily medicineHuman papillomavirusVaccinationHPV vaccinesGynecologyPublic healthDemographyPromiscuityHPV infectionCancerAdvertisingPsychologyVirologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In January 2012, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) of Canada recommended that males aged 9-26 years receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to protect against genital warts and HPV-associated cancers. Estimated HPV vaccine uptake rates for Canadian males are extremely low. Using a content analysis of Canadian newspaper articles, this study investigated what information about the HPV vaccine was relayed to the public, and how this content was portrayed following the 2012 male HPV vaccine recommendation. A search was conducted using Proquest Canadian Newsstand Complete for newspaper articles published between January 1, 2012, and September 1, 2014. Researchers coded 232 articles on several relevant dimensions: article information; epidemiological information; public policy information; article topic; article and title tone; and informant testimony. The majority of articles (93%) mentioned that girls are eligible for the HPV vaccine, whereas only half (49%) mentioned male eligibility. While most articles associated HPV with cervical cancer (85%), fewer indicated its relation to other HPV-associated cancers (59%) or genital warts (52%). Most articles (60%) were positive or neutral (22%) in tone toward the HPV vaccine, while few had mixed messages (11%) or were negative (6%). Less than 5% of articles reported on issues of morality, suggesting that fears that the HPV vaccine causes promiscuity have largely subsided. Notably, article tone toward male vaccination became progressively more positive over time. However, half of the articles did not mention the vaccine's approval for males, and articles tended to report HPV's relation to cervical cancer over other HPV-associated cancers. The Canadian public may thus be unaware of male eligibility and the importance of HPV vaccine for males. The collaboration of researchers, health care providers, and policymakers with journalists is critical in order to disseminate complete and accurate HPV and HPV vaccine information.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0080.010
Science and technology studies0.0070.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations33
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth CommunicationSame topicCervical Cancer and HPV ResearchFrench-language works237,207