Vaccine Allocation and Distribution: A Review with a Focus on Quantitative Methodologies and Application to Equity, Hesitancy, and COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review focuses on vaccine distribution and allocation in the context of the current COVID-19 pandemic. The implications discussed are in the areas of equity in vaccine distribution and allocation (at a national level as well as worldwide), vaccine hesitancy, game-theoretic modeling to guide decision-making and policy-making at a governmental level, distribution and allocation barriers (in particular in low-income countries), and operations research (OR) mathematical models to plan and execute vaccine distribution and allocation. To conduct this review, we adopt a novel methodology that consists of three phases. The first phase deploys a bibliometric analysis; the second phase concentrates on a network analysis; and the last phase proposes a refined literature review based on the results obtained by the previous two phases. The quantitative techniques utilized to conduct the first two phases allow describing the evolution of the research in this area and its potential ramifications in future. In conclusion, we underscore the significance of operations research (OR)/management science (MS) research in addressing numerous challenges and trade-offs connected to the current pandemic and its strategic impact in future research.
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 | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".