"If we can prevent children from dying unnecessarily, I don't see a downside": An analysis of Vaccinations, Children, Parenting and Vulnerability in Parents and Todayâs Parent articles about Childhood Vaccinations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, children have been presented by the media and perceived by society as increasingly vulnerable. While using the discussion of childhood vaccinations in parenting magazines as a cultural site, this research explores the presentation of vaccinations, children, parenting, and vulnerability. Methodologically, I conducted a content analysis of 44 articles combined from Parents and Today’s Parent that focus on childhood vaccinations. Throughout the articles children were continually presented as vulnerable, and parents were presented as being responsible caretakers. In addition, a shift was noted where parents were expected to become experts themselves about vaccinations, instead of trusting the expertise of their doctors. The results, support existing literature that parenting magazines target middle-class mothers by supporting middle class ideals; Canadian and American publications distribute a similar message in their articles, that children are vulnerable; and individualism is increasing as parents become more educated about vaccines. This research also supports risk society theory through the identification of risks as being in a continuous cycle of change. The results extend existing literature by revealing that children are continually presented as vulnerable and at risk from a variety of aspects in contemporary society.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".