Nothing about us without us: Canadian vaccine decision making must involve disabled people
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across Canada, national and provincial Covid-19 vaccine prioritization guidance and strategies have failed to appropriately include people with disabilities. Since the early goal of vaccination was to reduce severity, those at higher risk of severe disease if infected were meant to be prioritized early in vaccination campaigns, directly reducing their chance of death due to Covid-19. Older adults and some other higher-risk groups were therefore accorded high priority. However, younger disabled people were not prioritized for vaccines at levels commensurate with their risk of severe Covid-19 outcomes. Consequently, Canadian national policy recommendations have been incongruent with peer countries’ vaccine prioritization, scientific evidence, and priorities expressed by Canadians regarding how we should allocate Covid-19 vaccines. To avoid repeating these mistakes, current and future pandemic planning must include disabled people as full members of decision-making committees, in keeping with the longstanding demand of disabled people: “Nothing about us without us.” (1)
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 | 0.024 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".