MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416276279 · doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2025.127998

Infodemiology of public sentiment toward the measles vaccine in Canada: A google trends and health belief model–based analysis, 2025

2025· article· en· W4416276279 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mohammad Jokar, Quinn Goddard, Diego B. Nóbrega

Bibliographic record

VenueVaccine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanada Excellence Research Chairs, Government of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMeaslesPublic healthMeasles vaccineThematic analysisVaccinationHealth communicationMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Measles remains a public health threat in Canada despite vaccine availability, making effective risk communication essential to deal with vaccine hesitancy. This study, conducted from July through September 2025, analyzed Google Trends data from January 1 to August 31, 2025, to assess public interest in the measles vaccine in Canada and identify regional and thematic patterns in vaccine-related information seeking. Ninety-two queries were analyzed for relative search volumes (RSV) and classified by sentiment and Extended Health Belief Model (EHBM) constructs. RSV values were normalized and aggregated by province. A national peak in searches occurred on March 19. Alberta showed consistently high engagement across sentiment categories, while Manitoba and Saskatchewan exhibited more negative sentiment, suggesting areas for targeted intervention. EHBM analysis showed most queries related to cues to action, followed by perceived barriers, highlighting the need to address motivational and barrier-related concerns. Findings highlight regional differences, reinforcing importance of tailored communication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVaccine→Same topicVaccine Coverage and Hesitancy→French-language works237,207→