Travel counsellors and travel health advice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Travel Counsellors may be a source of health advice to travellers and might influence travellers' decisions to seek consultation from health professionals. We examined the travel health advice that Alberta travel counsellors currently provide their clients and assessed their health knowledge and practices. METHODS: Cross-sectional postal survey of travel counsellors who book international trips identified from a random sample of Alberta travel agencies in 2000. RESULTS: The response rate was 54.4%. Over 80% of respondents routinely provide clients with general health advice, and approximately 70% advise on malaria risk and vaccines required for travel. The risk of malaria was correctly identified by 72% of the respondents who frequently book clients to malarious destinations. Most respondents (79%) thought they should be involved in promoting the health of international travellers. Their preference was to provide health advice to their clients (90%) rather than refer them to a health professional (67%). CONCLUSIONS: A large proportion of Alberta travel counsellors provided travel-related health advice to clients. Their preferred role of counselling rather than referring conflicts with the recommendations of the International Society of Travel Medicine.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".