MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2530534243

Vaccine-Related Injuries: Why Canada Needs to Adopt a No-Fault Compensation Scheme in Light of the New H1N1 Vaccine

2010· article· en· W2530534243 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Erin Fowler

Bibliographic record

VenueDalhousie journal of legal studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMedical Malpractice and Liability Issues
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicVaccinationGovernment (linguistics)ImmunizationDamagesHuman mortality from H5N1TortPublic healthMedicinePolitical scienceVirologyLawCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)ImmunologyLiabilityDisease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

On June 11, 2009, the World Health Organization (“WHO”) declared the H1N1 influenza a pandemic. H1N1 is a strain of the influenza virus that, in the past, usually only affected pigs. In the spring of 2009, it emerged in people in North America. This is a new strain of influenza, and because humans have little to no natural immunity to this virus, it can cause serious and widespread illness. As of November 1, 2009, there were more than 440 000 laboratory-confirmed worldwide cases of pandemic influenza H1N1 and over 6000 deaths reported to WHO. In late October, the H1N1 vaccine was approved for rollout across Canada. Since then, Canadians lined up en masse across the provinces and territories to receive the vaccine. This was in part due to the strong urging by the Government of Canada for every Canadian to receive the vaccine. Despite the advantages of wide-scale immunization, there is a significant drawback – many people who receive vaccines each year suffer adverse effects. Despite this fact, Quebec is the only province in Canada that currently has a plan to compensate people who may be injured by vaccinations. For the majority of Canadians, the only recourse when injured by a vaccine is to go through the tort system. By requiring individuals to proceed through the tort system (i.e.: having to prove someone was at fault for causing the injury), many people who have a severe reaction from a vaccine are left with no remedy. This article urges more jurisdictions in Canada to adopt a no-fault compensation scheme for vaccine-related injuries. It will explore how vaccine-related injuries are currently covered under medical malpractice and manufacturer liability schemes, and the reasons why many believe that medical malpractice approaches should be retained in their entirety. In contrast to these beliefs, this article will address how a no-fault system would prove to be an adequate and efficient means of compensating individuals who have been injured by vaccines. This argument will be advanced by looking at how other jurisdictions have implemented no- fault compensation for vaccine-related injuries. Finally, this article will address why it is essential for Canada to adopt this new compensation system as soon as possible in order to address the needs of citizens who may be injured by the new H1N1 vaccine.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.911
Threshold uncertainty score0.645

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0200.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.005
Open science0.0050.005
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDalhousie journal of legal studiesSame topicMedical Malpractice and Liability IssuesFrench-language works237,207