Influenza a Vaccination Knowledge, Attitude, Practice of Athletes Competing in Canadian Interuniversity Sport in Calgary, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) athletes regarding influenza A vaccination. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Setting: University of Calgary. Participants: The CIS athlete (N=450) population was sampled by convenience (n=177, mean age 20.4 ± 2.2 years) and compared to non-athlete kinesiology students (n=34, 21.06 ± 2.7 years of age). Independent variable: Vaccination history. Main outcome measures: A frequency analysis was employed to describe the KAP of each group. Groups were compared by c2 or Kruskal-Wallis analysis. Results: Over half of athletes were aware of influenza vaccination safety, effectiveness and side effects. Athletes were significantly more concerned about contracting the virus due to potential consequences, such as an interruption of training and infection of teammates, compared to non-athletes (p<0.05). Nearly one third (29.2%) of athletes reported vaccination participation. Conclusion: The vaccination participation of CIS athletes is low when requirements for herd immunity are considered.\n\nKeywords: Athletes, university students, influenza, influenza A, knowledge, attitude, practice
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".