Identifying Unvaccinated Individuals in Canada: A Predictive Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recently, the media and public health officials have become increasingly aware of the rise in anti-vaccine sentiment. Vaccinations have numerous health benefits for immunized individuals as well as for the general public through herd immunity. Given the rise in immunization-preventable diseases, a consequence of people opting out of their routine vaccinations, we determined that Canadian health data can identify individuals over the age of 60 who chose not to get vaccinated (80.1% negative predictive value) and individuals under the age of 60 who have recently been vaccinated (96.4% positive predictive value). Using the 2009-2014 Canadian Community Health Surveys (CCHS), a probit model identified the variables that were most commonly associated with flu vaccination outcomes. Of 1,381 variables, 47 with the most significant marginal effects were selected, including the presence of diseases (e.g. diabetes and cancer), behavioral characteristics (e.g. smoking and exercise), exposure to the medical system (e.g. whether the individual gets a regular check-up), and a person's living situation (e.g. having young children in the household). These variables were then used to generate a Random Forest classification model, trained on the 2009-2013 dataset, and tested on the 2014 dataset. We achieved an overall accuracy of 87.8% between the two final models, each using 25 classification trees with bounded depth of 20 nodes, randomly selecting from all 47 variables. With the two proposed policies, this model can be leveraged to efficiently allocate vaccination promotion efforts. Additionally, it can be applied to future surveys, only requiring 3.6% of the variables in the CCHS for successful prediction.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".