O-236 HEALTHCARE WORKERS VACCINATION: MOROCCAN EXPECTATIONS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction In Morocco, there are still no regulatory texts or recommendations from the authorities concerned regarding the Vaccination of HealthCare Workers (HCW-V). This work aim is to propose guidelines for the vaccination of moroccan HealthCare Workers (HCW) against VPDs. Method Study of the legal and regulatory framework of HCW-V in Morocco, and benchmarking of international practices in addition to the World Health Organization (WHO) directives of the “Implementation Guide for Vaccination of Health Workers”. Results The legal and regulatory framework of the HCW-V is defined by the moroccan Labor Act which places responsibility for the workers’ health and safety on the employer, and its implementing decree concerning general safety measures. prevention against biological risks. International benchmarking, which concerned practices in United Kingdom, United States, Canada and Switzerland, coupled with WHO directives, demonstrated the interest of an HCW-V program against Tetanus, Diphtheria, Viral Hepatitis B, Measles, Rubella, Meningococcus, Chickenpox, Whooping Cough and Seasonal Flu. This program takes the form of recommendations in certain countries, or legal obligations in others. Discussion The HCW-V measures should consider the national immunization program, and specially the epidemiological situation of infectious diseases in each country, in particular that VPDs. The determination of recommendations, being the result of a multidisciplinary consultation, should be part of a national policy for the occupational risks prevention among HCW including managing infectious risks. Conclusion HCW-V is a crucial element among primary prevention measures in the workplace, and where the occupational physician plays an essential role in assessing the infectious risk and implementing preventive actions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".