MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4413031938 · doi:10.33540/3123

Evaluating Vaccines in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

2025· dissertation· en· W4413031938 on OpenAlexaff
Rita Reyburn

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Infection and ImmunityIntertek (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLow and middle income countriesMiddle incomeGeographyPolitical scienceSocioeconomicsEconomic growthDemographic economicsEconomicsDeveloping country

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The continued high burden of communicable disease globally underlines the importance of vaccines in world health. The ever-growing range and complexity of vaccines that can meet this challenge demand reliable evidence of vaccine efficacy and effectiveness. Such evidence is often derived from studies in high-income settings but extrapolation of efficacy and especially effectiveness of vaccines to low- and middle-income countries is often unreliable due to the many differences that exist between rich and poor worlds. However, such evidence is critically needed in resource poor settings where disease burdens are high, and vaccine programs have to compete for scarce resources. Evaluation of vaccine impact in resource poor settings is challenged by a number of factors including accuracy of information systems, availability and quality of laboratory support and rapid changes in use of health services. Cost, population coverage and dosing schedules are ongoing challenges in resource poor countries. This thesis addresses these issues and contributes to the growing body of knowledge of how best to design, implement and evaluate vaccine programs in resource poor countries using routine administrative data.

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)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
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 score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.268

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.337 · 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 topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→