Redefining Mandatory Vaccination as Necessary to Life and the Refusal of Vaccination as Criminal Negligence Causing Death
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that childhood vaccination should be considered a necessary of life as defined in Section 215 (1) of the Canadian Criminal Code, and parents who do not vaccinate their children should be considered responsible for death by criminal negligence if their child dies from a preventable disease. It timelines the long history of the vaccine debate from the perspective of both science of skeptics and points to the since-retracted Wakefield paper as the catalyst for the re-emergence of this debate, detailing the science behind why vaccination is safe, effective, and necessary. It then outlines the theory of medical neglect as a form of indirect killing in the same way starvation or lack of shelter is currently considered neglect under the Code, to prove that vaccination is required for all children who can be vaccinated and the dangers of not doing so. It concludes with notes on disease prevention and education to increase the number of vaccinated children, as the goal of defining vaccination as a necessary of life is not meant to punish parents but to encourage higher rates of vaccination and a greater communal knowledge of medical procedures.
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 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".