MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4307303105 · doi:10.2196/preprints.43728

Pediatric COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Canada: An analysis of Tweets (Preprint)

2022· preprint· en· W4307303105 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Janessa Griffith, Helen Monkman, Husayn Marani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMisinformationCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)MedicineFamily medicinePopulationPediatricsPolitical scienceEnvironmental healthPathologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND In July 2022, a COVID-19 vaccine was approved for use in Canada for children between the ages of 6 months to five years old. Although COVID-19 vaccine uptake has been strong in the adult population, only 6.5% of the youngest members of society have been vaccinated in Canada. OBJECTIVE This research aimed to determine the reasons behind why some parents and caregivers might feel hesitant towards vaccinating their young ones. Knowing the reasons why parents and caregivers might feel hesitant about vaccinating their child could help doctors communicate more effectively with their concerned patients or identify current misinformation needing to be dispelled by public health agencies. METHODS Researchers obtained data (i.e., Tweets) from Twitter the week following the Health Canada approval of a COVID-19 vaccine for young children. These Tweets were qualitatively analyzed for themes regarding vaccine hesitancy. RESULTS Of the 1,192 Tweets that were extracted and analyzed, 449 Tweets (38%) had expressions of vaccine hesitancy. Within those Tweets, the main themes were centred around: safety concerns, the belief that children are not impacted by COVID-19, political or economic concerns, and the belief that the vaccine is not effective. CONCLUSIONS Compared to similar research on vaccine hesitancy for adults, two additional themes were distinct when discussing the vaccine for children: children were not viewed as impacted by COVID-19 and the belief that the vaccine would not be effective.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Observationallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.209

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.007
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→