Examen déontologique des programmes d’immunisation de la santé publique au Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’Organisation mondiale de la Santé (OMS) reconnaît que la vaccination est l’une des interventions en matière de santé publique les plus efficaces pour sauver des vies. Lors de l’élaboration d’une feuille de route permettant d’établir un ordre de priorité relatif à l’utilisation des vaccins contre la maladie à coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) dans un contexte d’approvisionnement limité, l’OMS a souligné l’importance d’un cadre de valeurs (principes éthiques). La vaccination doit faire l’objet d’un examen éthique indépendant des données de recherche sur les vaccins, des pratiques de fabrication, de l’assurance juridique et éthique du consentement éclairé, ainsi que des questions de justice sociale concernant l’équité des programmes, y compris le droit d’accès. Un examen déontologique du programme de vaccination de l’Australie a été rapporté en 2012. Ce dossier CANVax (Centre canadien de ressources et d’échange sur les données probantes en vaccination) propose un examen déontologique de la vaccination au Canada en utilisant les critères utilisés pour l’Australie.
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 | 0.007 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".