COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Young Adults in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Web-Based Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ending the COVID-19 pandemic requires achieving herd immunity, either by previous infection or by vaccination. However, concerns about the COVID-19 vaccine are growing around the globe. The current study was conducted to investigate young the adult population's hesitancy towards the vaccine. The study used a prospective cross-sectional design. Data was collected using an online self-administered questionnaire. A total of 862 Saudi adults participated. Information was gathered on the participants' perspectives towards the severity and susceptibility of the COVID-19 infection, reasons for their hesitancy to receive the vaccine, perceived benefits, and reasons for action. Just under a quarter (19.6%) of respondents had previously tested positive for COVID-19. A small minority of the participants had already received the vaccine (2.1%), while 20.3% had registered in the Sehaty app (application) to receive the vaccine. Just under half of them (48%) will take the vaccine when mass vaccination is achieved and approximately the same number (46.7%) will only take it if it is made mandatory. Vaccine reluctance is highly prevalent among the general public in Saudi Arabia during the COVID-19 pandemic. While many are aware of a high likelihood of getting the infection, the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccine were reported as barriers to vaccination.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it