MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001907778 · doi:10.1177/1084822304268156

Improving Cancer Awareness among Asian Americans Using Targeted and Culturally Appropriate Media: A Case Study

2004· article· en· W2001907778 on OpenAlexaff
X. Grace, Linda Fleisher, Rosita L. Edwards

Bibliographic record

VenueHome Health Care Management & Practice · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsAtlantic Cancer Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVietnameseCancer preventionMedicineCancerCervical cancerMainstreamChinese americansCancer screeningBreast cancer awarenessBreast cancerFamily medicineEthnic groupPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Reaching Asian Americans with cancer awareness messages is critical to improving cancer detection and reducing risk. Two separate targeted media campaigns, sponsored by the Asian Tobacco Education, Cancer Awareness, and Research (ATECAR), were implemented to increase cancer awareness among Chinese, Koreans, Vietnamese, and Cambodians residing in Philadelphia and the surrounding counties. These campaigns, based on Rogers’s diffusion and innovation theoretical model, were culturally sensitive, multilingual, and implemented over an extended time frame using print articles and a radio series under the respective general headings ATECAR Link and Voice of ATECAR. The series covered a range of topics that included tobacco smoking and health, cervical and breast cancer, clinical trials, and cancer information. Despite a reputation for noninvolvement in mainstream cancerrelated media issues, results of the campaigns reflected an exceptional response from the targeted communities. The results suggest that wellplanned, community-based media campaigns can have positive impacts on cancer awareness in Asian communities.

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)0.002
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.355 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHome Health Care Management & PracticeSame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207