Sun protection among parents and children at freshwater beaches.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper describes the sun-related behaviour of parents and their children, ages 5-12 years. METHODS: In-person interviews were conducted with parents and observations of parents and their children to ascertain: 1) parents' self-reported use of sunscreen, 2) parent-proxy reports of children's sunscreen use, and 3) observations of parents' and children's use of shade, hats and protective clothing. Data collection took place at freshwater beaches in BC's Southern Interior, between 12 pm and 5 pm, over a seven-day period during August 1999. RESULTS: 94 parents were interviewed and observed. Parent-proxy reports and observational data were collected on 161 children. Half (53%) of parents reported they were wearing sunscreen at the time of the on-beach interview. Most (65%) of parents reported that their children were wearing sunscreen at the time of the on-beach interview. Children's first application of sunscreen took place on average 1.5 hours prior to interview. Most parents (86%) reported that their children's sunscreen had not been reapplied at the time of interview. Few parents (13%) or children (5%) used shade as provided by nearby trees or umbrellas. CONCLUSION: Public education should emphasize sunscreen re-application. Actions should be taken to enhance the convenient use of shade structures at public beaches.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".