Public communication about pandemic influenza : a critical public health ethics analysis / by Laena Maunula.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this research was two-fold: two-fold: firstly, to critically analyze, using a critical public health ethics perspective, public communication directed toward the population of Ontario regarding a future influenza pandemic and compare this communication with information needs and interests of a sample of this population, and secondly, to examine public preferences for engagement in pandemic planning. First, public communication/education materials developed by Public Health Agency of Canada, Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (Ontario) and Health Canada concerning pandemic influenza were analysed using a four \nstep coding process. Next, survey data was collected regarding general pandemic knowledge, informational needs, desires and expectations, including opinions regarding public engagement from a First Nations and a university sample. Results from the document analysis and survey were compared and analysed using a critical public health ethics lens. \nResults indicated that; (a) Considerable overlap exists between the most important topics as identified by respondents and the topics most covered in documents, although several areas in which information desired by respondents was not included in documents, (b) Respondents \nunderestimated the projected scale and impact of influenza pandemic, (c) Respondents were largely unaware of government pandemic plans including Canadian Pandemic Influenza Plan, although expressed great interest in pandemic plans, (d) Respondents were in favour of having \ninvolvement in pandemic decision making at some level, and indicated their preferred methods of participation, (e) Communication documents largely portrayed pandemic influenza as a biomedical issue, and pandemic planning as within the Jurisdiction of experts. Prevention, particularly self-protection behaviours on the part of the individual, was also a dominant theme. \nThe author posits practical suggestions for improving future public communications. \n \nStudy sampling from 2 populations in Northwestern Ontario : students, faculty, staff at Lakehead University (Thunder Bay) and the Lac des Milles Lacs First Nations band (Aboriginal or Native peoples).
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".