“There was a lot of that [coercion and manipulation] happening and well, that’s not very trustworthy”: a qualitative study on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a large proportion of the Canadian population is fully vaccinated against COVID-19, millions of eligible individuals remain unvaccinated. Trust in public health and government impacts the effectiveness of crisis communication and the public’s willingness to follow health recommendations. This qualitative study involved semistructured interviews with 12 COVID-19 vaccine-hesitant adults in Canada. Using thematic analysis, four themes were generated, including (1) perceived low use of crisis communication guiding principles contributes to distrust in officials; (2) risk perception and decisions are influenced by a range of sources; (3) concerns regarding vaccine safety, the industry, and politicization of efforts are impacting trust; and (4) stigma around vaccine status further entrenches views and erodes trust. This study highlights the importance of trust and how vaccine hesitancy is fueled by perceived ineffective crisis communication by officials.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".