Immunization Rejection in Southern Alberta: A Comparison of the Perspectives of Mothers and Health Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Qualitative grounded theory was used to compare and contrast the understanding and decision-making process of non-immunizing mothers and health professionals' perceptions of these mothers' understanding and decision-making process. The sample comprised 8 mothers with purposefully unimmunized children under the age of 6 years and 12 health professionals. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and the data generated were analyzed using data immersion, memo-writing, and 3 stages of coding. The mothers and health professionals identified similar, interrelated factors influencing the mothers' decision, categorized into 4 groups: emotions, beliefs, facts, and information. Three primary themes were evident: the health professionals emphasized the influence of religion in decision-making to a greater extent than did the mothers, the meaning of evidence appeared to differ for mothers and health professionals, and mothers revealed a mistrust of health professionals. Immunization is a public health issue; collaboration and understanding are necessary to promote positive health outcomes in children.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".