MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084161260 · doi:10.2310/7750.2008.07081

Tanning Behavior of London-Area Youth

2009· article· en· W2084161260 on OpenAlex
Danielle Gordon, Lyn Guenther

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEnvironmental healthSunscreening AgentsSunbathingSun exposureSkin cancerDermatology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends that tanning parlors not be used by individuals under age 18 years. The impact of self-tanners on tanning parlor and sunscreen use by Canadian teens is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine teens' use of, knowledge of, attitudes toward, and behavior regarding tanning parlors, self-tanning products, and sunscreen. METHODS: Self-report questionnaire of grade 10 students in Thames Valley district, Ontario. RESULTS: Indoor tanning parlors were used by 14%, self-tanners by 28%, and sunscreen daily or most days by 36%. Use was more common in females. There was a strong association between parental and child use of tanning parlors and use of self-tanners. Sixty-two percent believe that self-tanners give adequate photoprotection. CONCLUSIONS: Further education is required to address teen tanning parlor use, infrequent sunscreen use, and lack of knowledge about the safety of tanning parlors and self-tanning products.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.246 · 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