MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4200547044 · doi:10.1101/2021.12.24.21268387

The Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Project: Design and Protocol

2021· preprint· en· W4200547044 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Peter A. Hall, Geoffrey T. Fong, Sara C Hitchman, Anne C K Quah, Thomas K Agar, Gang Meng, Hasan Ayaz, Bruce Doré, Mohammad Nazmus Sakib, Anna Hudson, Christian Boudreau

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityOntario Institute for Cancer ResearchUniversity of Waterloo
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversity of Waterloo
KeywordsNeurocognitiveData collectionPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Protocol (science)PopulationCognitionPsychologyApplied psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Vaccine hesitancy and inconsistent mitigation behavior performance have been significant challenges throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. In Canada, despite relatively high vaccine availability and uptake, willingness to accept booster shots and maintain mitigation behaviors in the post-acute phase of COVID-19 remain uncertain. The aim of the Canadian COVID-19 Experiences Project (CCEP) is two-fold: 1) to identify social-cognitive and neurocognitive correlates of vaccine hesitancy and mitigation behaviors, and 2) to identify optimal communication strategies to promote vaccination and mitigation behaviors into the post-acute phase of the pandemic. Methods and analyses The CCEP is comprised of two components: a conventional population survey (Study 1) and a functionally interconnected laboratory study (Study 2). Study 1 will involve 3 waves of data collection. Wave 1, completed between 28 September and 21 October, 2021, recruited 1,958 vaccine-hesitant (49.8%) and fully vaccinated (50.2%) adults using quota sampling to ensure maximum statistical power. Measures included a variety of social cognitive (e.g., beliefs, intentions) and neurocognitive (e.g., delay discounting) measures, followed by an opportunity to view and rate a set of professionally produced COVID-19 public service announcement (PSA) videos for perceived efficacy. Study 2 employs the same survey items and PSAs but coupled with lab-based eye tracking and functional brain imaging to directly quantify neural indicators of attention capture and self-reflection in a smaller community sample. In the final phase of the project, subjective impressions and neural indicators of PSA efficacy will be compared and used to inform recommendations for construction of COVID-19 PSAs into the post-acute phase of the pandemic. Ethics and dissemination The CCEP has received ethical review and approval by the University of Waterloo Office of Research Ethics. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at scientific meetings.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0060.004
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.014

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 head0.197
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→