MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389443741 · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2023.1248949

A social media intervention for communicating vaccine safety in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a pilot study

2023· article· en· W4389443741 on OpenAlexaff
Lucie M. Bucci, Smaragda Lamprianou, Francesco Gesualdo, Alberto Eugenio Tozzi, Tala Ghalayini, Isabelle Sahinovic, Shanthi Pal

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Public Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsAlberta Health Services
FundersWorld Health Organization
KeywordsVaccine safetySocial mediaIntervention (counseling)BusinessVaccinationMedicineWork (physics)Environmental healthComputer scienceNursingEngineeringImmunizationWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vaccine safety is a concern that continues to drive hesitancy and refusal in populations in low-and-middle income countries (LMICs). Communicating about vaccine safety is a strategy that can successfully change personal and community perceptions and behaviors toward vaccination. The COVID-19 infodemic emergency with the rapid rollout of new vaccines and new technology, demonstrated the need for good and effective vaccine safety communication. The Vaccine Safety Net (VSN), a WHO-led global network of websites that provide reliable information on vaccine safety offers the ideal environment for gathering web and social media analytics for measuring impact of vaccine safety messages. Its members work with a wide range of populations, in different geographic locations and at many levels including national, regional, and local. We propose to undertake a pilot study to evaluate the feasibility of implementing COVID-19 vaccine safety communications with VSN members working in LMICs and to assess the impact of communications on public knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions.

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 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)0.016
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0160.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0060.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0840.015

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Public HealthSame topicVaccine Coverage and HesitancyFrench-language works237,207