MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7095545708

Who Should Receive the Vaccine? Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine

2009· article· en· W7095545708 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPneumococcal conjugate vaccineAspleniaVaccinationPneumococcal vaccineDiseaseConjugate vaccineVaccination schedulePneumococcal infectionsKidney disease
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

2) Children 24-59 months of age at higher risk of invasive pneumococcal disease • Children who attend child care centres • Children who are Aboriginal • Children who have sickle cell disease and other sickle cell hemoglobinopathies • Children with functional or anatomic asplenia • Children with HIV infection • Children with immunocompromising conditions (e.g., primary immuno-deficiencies; malignancies; conditions resulting from immunosuppres-sive therapy, solid organ transplantation, or use of long-term systemic corticosteroids; nephrotic syndrome) • Children with chronic medical conditions (e.g., chronic cardiac and pul-monary disease such as bronchopulmonary dysplasia, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal disease or CSF leak) • Children with cochlear implants or those receiving cochlear implants 3) Others • All other children in this age group should be encouraged to receive the vaccine even if they are not in the above groups Contraindications and Precautions Do NOT give the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine to: • Children who have had an anaphylactic reaction to a previous dose Dosage Schedule The dose of the conjugate vaccine for all age groups is 0.5 mL. See Canadian Immunization Guide for schedule by age

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.151

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0450.025

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPrenatal Screening and Diagnostics→French-language works237,207→