MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362509091 · doi:10.1016/j.ssmph.2023.101386

Vaccine hesitancy and respect for public health measures: Citizens’ trust in politicians and public servants across national, subnational and municipal levels of government

2023· article· en· W4362509091 on OpenAlexaffabout
Christopher A. Cooper

Bibliographic record

VenueSSM - Population Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic healthGovernment (linguistics)Civil servantsPublic administrationPolitical scienceBusinessLocal governmentEnvironmental healthPoliticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research shows that citizens' trust in government is associated with lower vaccine hesitancy and an increased willingness to follow public health measures. Thus far, however, the population health literature has largely conceptualized "government" as a unitary actor. This article furthers our understanding of this relationship by examining two important features of modern governance that have largely gone unexamined: (1) that governing involves popularly elected politicians and appointed bureaucrats; and (2), that governing often comprises many levels of government within the same country. Analyzing survey data from Canada with various multivariate regression models, this article finds that the relationship political trust has with vaccine hesitancy and intention to follow for public health measures is more complex than presently recognized. Specifically, a larger change in citizens' public health behaviors is associated with trust in public health officials than with trust in government, and of particular importance is trust in national public health authorities, despite the fact that public health measures in Canada are largely the jurisdiction of subnational governments. The implications of these findings for population health research and policymakers are discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.148
Threshold uncertainty score0.950

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSM - Population HealthSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207