Skin Cancer Prevention Coverage in Popular US Women’s Health and Fitness Magazines: An Analysis of Advertisements and Articles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The desire to be tan is a phenomenon that public health researchers have investigated, as exposure to UV radiation increases the chances of developing skin cancer. Media messages in women's magazines have been shown to contribute to this problem. Much less is known about the prevalence of skin cancer prevention messages in these magazines. This study's aim was to identify the number and type of articles and advertised products devoted to skin health (sun protection and skin cancer prevention in particular) within five popular U.S. greater than women's health and fitness magazines. We analyzed articles and advertisements over seven months of issues of the following popular women's health and fitness magazines: Fitness, Health, Self, Shape, and Women's Health, March 2013 through September 2013. Overall, 31 issues of the five magazines with a total of 780 articles and 1,986 advertisements were analyzed. Of the 780 articles, a mere 2.9% (n=23) were devoted to skin. Of the 258 skin product advertisements, less than 20% of the products contained sun protection factor (SPF). These findings suggest that women's health and fitness magazines can improve their efforts in informing women of skin cancer risks and preventive measures to minimize these risks. The role of these magazines in building health literacy among their readers is also discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".