MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402983228 · doi:10.3138/chr-2023-0006

“Needling Doubts”: Maternalism, Neo-liberalism and Intensive Parenting as the Roots of Vaccine Hesitancy in English-speaking Canada, 1980–2007

2024· article· en· W4402983228 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Kathryn Hughes, Catherine Carstairs

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Historical Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender, Feminism, and Media
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLiberalismDry needlingSociologyPolitical scienceMedicineLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the 1980s, there has been a growing anti-vaccination movement in English-speaking Canada created by a small number of people with alternative understandings of health and medicine, and by parents who believe their children were harmed by vaccination. The anti-vaccination movement of the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries was fuelled by growing concerns about environmental toxicity, skepticism about the motivations of the pharmaceutical industry, neo-liberal ideas about health that encouraged patients to take health and health care in their own hands, and the intensive parenting styles characteristic of late twentieth century Canada. To combat vaccine hesitancy, it is vital to understand the arguments of those opposed to vaccination, which are often far more complex and nuanced than the pro-side would like to admit.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.524

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0070.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.251 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Historical ReviewSame topicGender, Feminism, and MediaFrench-language works237,207