MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201633895 · doi:10.1073/pnas.2026382118

Citizens from 13 countries share similar preferences for COVID-19 vaccine allocation priorities

2021· article· en· W3201633895 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond Duch, Laurence Roope, Mara Violato, Matias Fuentes Becerra, Thomas Robinson, Jean‐François Bonnefon, Jorge Friedman, Peter John Loewen, Pavan Mamidi, Alessia Melegaro, Mariana Blanco, Juan F. Vargas, Julia Seither, Paolo Candio, Ana Gibertoni Cruz, Xinyang Hua, Adrian Barnett, Philip Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Government (linguistics)VaccinationPublic healthIdeologyConjoint analysisSample (material)PoliticsDeveloping countryBusiness2019-20 coronavirus outbreakEconomic growthPublic economicsEnvironmental healthPolitical scienceEconomicsMedicineVirologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How does the public want a COVID-19 vaccine to be allocated? We conducted a conjoint experiment asking 15,536 adults in 13 countries to evaluate 248,576 profiles of potential vaccine recipients who varied randomly on five attributes. Our sample includes diverse countries from all continents. The results suggest that in addition to giving priority to health workers and to those at high risk, the public favors giving priority to a broad range of key workers and to those with lower income. These preferences are similar across respondents of different education levels, incomes, and political ideologies, as well as across most surveyed countries. The public favored COVID-19 vaccines being allocated solely via government programs but were highly polarized in some developed countries on whether taking a vaccine should be mandatory. There is a consensus among the public on many aspects of COVID-19 vaccination, which needs to be taken into account when developing and communicating rollout strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.278 · 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.

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

Citations52
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207