Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past 100 years, an increasing array of vaccines has been introduced into the Canadian market and yet optimal use depends on public demand and acceptance of these products. In the 1990s, research focused on key barriers to vaccine uptake, highlighting the importance of barriers to access and "missed opportunities" for vaccination. In this century the focus is on vaccine hesitancy, which is influenced by factors such as complacency, convenience and confidence. This phenomenon is not new but some of its drivers include an increasingly crowded immunization schedule, heightened societal concerns about risk over benefit, and a rise in health consumerism. Understanding and addressing vaccine hesitancy will be critical to preventing it from undermining the success of immunization in the future. While more research is needed, there are both practitioner-based resources to optimize dialogue with vaccine-hesitant parents and program-based resources to address vaccine hesitancy at a population-based and societal level.
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 | 0.030 | 0.146 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.024 | 0.006 |
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".