“If I'm a naturopath, It's because I trust nature above everything else”: Canadian naturopaths' construction of vaccination as a risk object
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canadians and Quebecers increasingly consult complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) practitioners in parallel with biomedical providers. The close relationship between vaccine hesitancy and CAM use remains under explored in Western countries. We present the results of a qualitative study conducted among one of Quebec's most used CAM approaches: naturopathy. Using Boholm and Corvellec's relational theory of risk to illustrate naturopaths' construction of vaccination as an “object of risk”, we describe how the health representations of 30 Quebec naturopath interviewees are associated with the ways they perceived the risks of infectious diseases and vaccination. Our findings illustrate how Quebec naturopaths' view the body as “at risk” from the possible harmful effects of vaccines. For these naturopaths, the body is a site, a “terrain”, where homeostasis must continually be preserved, and needs to be protected from risks such as vaccines—which were seen as far riskier than infectious diseases—through natural means. Such views are often perceived as unscientific or even irrational by public health researchers. Our study highlights that naturopaths' attitudes towards vaccination are perfectly aligned with the epistemological tenets of their risk representations and conceptions of health.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 it