MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196315896 · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1095959

What’s the evidence for COVID-19 booster shots?

2021· article· en· W3196315896 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauren Vogel, Diana Duong

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBiomedical Ethics and Regulation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBooster (rocketry)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Government (linguistics)PandemicCoronavirus InfectionsComputer scienceMedicineVirologyEngineeringOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The United States government will roll out COVID-19 booster shots in late September to shore up protection against more transmissible variants. Other countries may follow suit. But the move is raising questions about the scientific and ethical basis for the decision, with some experts calling it

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.315
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association JournalSame topicBiomedical Ethics and RegulationFrench-language works237,207