MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405329699 · doi:10.1080/13876988.2024.2424571

Effect of Values, Institutional Trust, and Risk Perceptions on Support for Policy Tools in Immunisation against COVID-19: A Comparative Study

2024· article· en· W4405329699 on OpenAlexaff
Lihi Lahat, Chen Sharony, Villy Abraham, Ori Lev, Amit Avigur‐Eshel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicPsychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerceptionCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Risk perceptionPublic relationsPolitical scienceFoundation (evidence)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPublic economicsPositive economicsSociologyPsychologyEconomicsLawMedicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using Moral Foundation Theory, we explored whether values, institutional trust, and risk perceptions affected support for policy tools in COVID-19 immunisation. We asked which variables were more influential and whether Israel and the United Kingdom differed. We used a quantitative method based on surveys and found that values played an essential role, mainly with coercive tools, but differently in the UK and Israel. Risk perceptions were more influential in Israel, and institutional trust was more influential in the UK. Values-oriented analysis adds to the behavioural aspects of the policy tools literature and can help policymakers choose policy tools and communicate them.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.048
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.072

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.048
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.399
GPT teacher head0.570
Teacher spread0.171 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Comparative Policy Analysis Research and PracticeSame topicPsychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentFrench-language works237,207