Scoping Review of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy in Japanese Healthcare Providers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent publication regarding a March 2023 Google Scholar search found Japan unique in healthcare providers’ reaction to COVID-19 vaccines. According to one article, negative sentiment by healthcare providers toward vaccines defines the research in this area, with concerns about side effects outweighing worries regarding infection. This current study investigates the anomaly through a scoping review of “COVID-19, Japan, vaccine hesitancy” in six relevant databases: Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, OVID, ProQuest, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. By following PRISMA guidelines, the intent is a more thorough examination of this unusual evalua-tion of COVID-19 vaccines by Japanese healthcare providers than offered by the March 2023 search. The finding is that of the 997 returns, only four were relevant for assessment inclusion. Of these four, three, published in Vaccines, support vaccine hesitancy in Japanese healthcare providers and their becoming more so regarding a subsequent dose of the vaccine. One article published in BMJ Open did not find this. Yet, the design of none of the studies was specific to investigating vaccine hesitancy in Japanese healthcare providers, making the conclusion questionable. Suggest-ed future research directions include investigating the primacy of those databases searched and the need for timeliness in examining COVID-19 anomalies
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 | 0.036 | 0.145 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.022 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".