MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158162931 · doi:10.29173/alr2643

Mandatory Childhood Immunization Programs: Is There Still a Role for Religious and Conscience Belief Exemptions?

2021· article· en· W3158162931 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mariette Brennan, Kumanan Wilson, Vanessa Gruben

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Law Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsNOSM UniversityLakehead UniversityUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConscienceImmunizationBusinessPolitical scienceLawActuarial scienceMedicineImmunologyAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Childhood immunizations are a vital component in controlling and stopping the spread of diseases. In recent years, we have seen an increase in anti-vaccine sentiment and, as a result, the rise of vaccine-preventable disease. We are also now living through a global pandemic in which COVID-19 vaccines are required for society to return to pre-pandemic normalcy. Childhood immunization programs are vital for public health. This article examines childhood vaccination programs and the use of exemptions in such programs. The article analyzes the constitutionality of religious and conscience belief exemptions in vaccination programs and highlights their applicability in terms of both routine childhood immunizations and in the case of COVID-19 vaccines. The article ultimately proposes ways to restructure religious and conscience belief exemptions and provides guidance on how to move childhood immunization programs forward in the COVID-19 era.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.769
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0060.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.276 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Law ReviewSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207