MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407577305 · doi:10.4337/9781035326570.00030

Nationalism, COVID-19 and public health

2025· book-chapter· en· W4407577305 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Stephanie Kerr

Bibliographic record

VenueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks · 2025
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNationalismCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Public health2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPolitical scienceSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)VirologyHistorySociologyMedicinePoliticsLawPathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)Outbreak

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To suggest that the Covid-19 pandemic posed a significant challenge to public health governance would be a tremendous understatement. How exactly governments sought to address the challenge and the difficulties they faced in doing so varied significantly across cases. Despite this variation, nationalism represents one common and potentially powerful tool available to state governments to mobilize populations in support of public health measures and help ensure compliance. Yet, in the face of increased polarization in even established democracies, state governments may not always hold a monopoly on the use of nationalism as a tool of mobilization. Accordingly, this chapter explores the way in which nationalism was instrumentalized by the American, Canadian, and Mexican federal administrations as part of a process of designing, implementing, and selling their populations on their responses to Covid-19, and what this meant for the securitization of public health policy.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.236 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEdward Elgar Publishing eBooks→Same topicGlobal Public Health Policies and Epidemiology→French-language works237,207→