MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994978194 · doi:10.1136/jech.2009.096701m

Ethnicity and cancer treatment in New Zealand: do Maori patients get a worse deal?

2009· article· en· W1994978194 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sarah Hill, Diana Sarfati, Tony Blakely, Bridget Robson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Epidemiology & Community Health · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEthnic groupColorectal cancerIndigenousCancer registryCancerCohortPopulationCancer treatmentDemographyPacific islandersGerontologyInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

buffers.More local patterns of area effect are further revealed, eg more mixed land use is associated with higher levels of walking in some but not all areas of the city, suggesting that the significance and magnitude of associations between built environment characteristics and walking are not the same across space.Discussion: Application and findings of the three approaches lead to distinct yet complementary conclusions about the environmental determinants of physical activity and the scales at which they may be operating.Findings are discussed in terms of their implications for public health practice and policy, eg acquiring and inventorying data on population health as well as area characteristics for surveillance purposes, developing and implementing health promotion and prevention strategies based on extent data at the local and at different geographical levels, and evaluating policy interventions aimed at changing the local environment.The challenges of targeting actions at the local area level are underlined and examined in light of recent national (UK and Canada) and international recommendations and guidance to create environments conducive to physical activity.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
Threshold uncertainty score0.650

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Epidemiology & Community HealthSame topicColorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionFrench-language works237,207