It’s a Matter of Institutional Trust: Seasonal Childhood Vaccine Uptake During a Time of Mixed Messages in Alberta, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a time of conflicting information, how does trust in institutions and their messages shape parents’ decisions around childhood vaccination? Using a mixed-methods approach with survey (N = 337 parents) and interview data (N = 23), this study explores seasonal vaccine uptake and hesitancy among parents in the Canadian province of Alberta since the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. We find that parental perceptions of vaccinations largely reflected the messages presented by trusted institutions. Parents who vaccinated their children for COVID-19 and influenza expressed higher levels of trust in public health agencies and the federal government, but not their own provincial government. They also described vaccination as a collective responsibility, as often advocated by the institutions in which they placed their trust. Parents who did not vaccinate their children reported higher levels of trust in the more conservative provincial government. Their reasoning focused on individual risks and benefits, reflecting common messages presented by the province. They also expressed skepticism for healthcare institutions and described viral infection as inevitable and mild, reinforcing a theory of moral calm in relation to childhood infections. Findings contribute to a larger understanding of how individualized parental perceptions of risk vary with institutional messages and shape decisions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it