Public Responses to Policy Reversals: The\nCase of Mask Usage in Canada during\nCOVID-19
Bibliographic record
Abstract
La maladie du coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) a poussé les organismes de santé publique et autres responsables gouvernementaux à apporter des changements rapides, importants et parfois contradictoires aux politiques, en réaction à la nouvelle information. Les auteurs étudient les répercussions de ces changements sur l'adhésion du public à ces décisions en se penchant sur le cas de l'évolution des directives quant à l'usage du masque par les personnes asymptomatiques. Les recommandations officielles relatives à l'usage de masques au Canada étant passées de la dissuasion à la contrainte, les auteurs étudient les constats tirés d'un sondage d'opinion publique en cours visant à analyser les fluctuations actuelles des taux d'adoption du port du masque et des niveaux de confiance du public dans les institutions gouvernementales. Les auteurs constatent que les Canadiens affichent des niveaux élevés d'adhésion aux politiques changeantes sur l'usage du masque et que la confiance dans les autorités de la santé publique demeure constante, malgré ces changements. Abstract: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has resulted in rapid, substantial, and at times contradictory policy changes as public health agencies and government officials react to new information. We examine the implications of such changes for public compliance by drawing on the case of revised guidance on mask usage by asymptomatic individuals. As official recommendations on the use of masks in Canada shift from discouraged to mandatory, we draw on findings from an ongoing public opinion study to explore contemporaneous changes in rates of mask adoption and levels of public trust in government institutions. We find that Canadians exhibit high levels of compliance with changing policies on mask usage and that trust in public health officials remains consistent despite policy change.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".