COVID-19 Vaccine Concerns about Safety, Effectiveness, and Policies in the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Italy among Unvaccinated Individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine, global vaccination distribution efforts have thus far had varying levels of success. Vaccine hesitancy remains a threat to vaccine uptake. This study has four objectives: (1) describe and compare vaccine hesitancy proportions by country; (2) categorize vaccine-related concerns; (3) rank vaccine-related concerns; and (4) compare vaccine-related concerns by country and hesitancy status in four countries-the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Italy. Using the Pollfish survey platform, we sampled 1000 respondents in Canada, Sweden, and Italy and 750 respondents in the United States between 21-28 May 2021. Results showed vaccine-related concerns varied across three topical areas-vaccine safety and government control, vaccine effectiveness and population control, and freedom. For each thematic area, the top concern was statistically significantly different in each country and among the hesitant and non-hesitant subsamples within each county. Concerns related to freedom were the most universal. Understanding the specific concerns among individuals when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccine can help to inform public communications and identify which, if any, salient narratives are global.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".