Influenza vaccination.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This article compares influenza vaccination rates in 1996/97 and 2000/01 and describes the characteristics of adults who were vaccinated. DATA SOURCES: The data on influenza vaccination are from the 1996/97 National Population Health Survey and the 2000/01 Canadian Community Health Survey, both conducted by Statistics Canada. Data on hospitalizations and deaths are from the Hospital Mortality Data Base and the Canadian Mortality Data Base, respectively. ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES: Cross-tabulations were used to estimate rates of vaccination among seniors, people with chronic conditions, and the total population aged 20 or older. Multiple logistic regression was used to assess relationships between being vaccinated and selected characteristics. MAIN RESULTS: Between 1996/97 and 2000/01, the percentage of Canadians aged 20 or older who reported having had a flu shot the previous year rose from 16% to 28%. Rates were higher for seniors and people with chronic conditions. The odds of vaccination were high for residents of middle-to-high income households, people with at least some postsecondary education, former smokers, and people with a regular doctor. Smokers and people who reported their health as good to excellent had lower odds of being vaccinated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.170 | 0.093 |
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".