Bibliographic record
Abstract
<div> In Quebec (Canada), the roll-out of the vaccination started slowly in December 2020 due to limited vaccine supply. While the first and second doses were well-accepted among adults and vaccine uptake was above 90%, in late 2021 and 2022, vaccine acceptance decreased for children vaccination and receipt of a 3<sup>rd</sup> or a 4<sup>th</sup> dose. In the autumn of 2022, four focus groups were conducted with vaccine-hesitant parents of children aged 0–4 and adults who expressed little intention to receive a booster dose. The objective of this study was to gather participants’ perspectives on vaccination in general, on the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and the information available, and to gain insights into the underlying reasons for their low intention of either having their child(ren) vaccinated, or receiving an additional dose of vaccine. A total of 35 participants took part in the focus groups. While participants expressed a certain level of trust and confidence in public health and government authorities regarding pandemic management and the vaccination campaign, they were also concerned that transparent information was lacking to support an informed decision on booster doses and children’s vaccination. Many participants felt adequately protected against the infection during the focus groups, citing a lack of perceived benefits as the primary reason for refusing a booster dose. Parents who refused to administer the COVID-19 vaccine to their young children felt that the vaccine was not useful for children and were concerned about potential side effects. The majority reported that their opinions regarding other recommended vaccines had not changed since the beginning of the pandemic. While these results are reassuring, our findings highlight the importance of transparency in public health communications about vaccines to increase confidence and to develop strategies to address vaccine fatigue and complacency toward COVID-19 vaccines. </div>
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.373 | 0.008 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".