Canadian adolescents' perspectives of cancer risk: a qualitative study: Table 1:
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research examining adolescents' understandings of cancer and cancer risk is limited. Accordingly, we conducted an ethnographic study that sought to extend our limited understanding of Canadian adolescents' perspectives of cancer and cancer prevention including how adolescents conceptualize and understand cancer risk. This article addresses findings specific to adolescents' perspectives of cancer risk. Seventy-five adolescents (11-19 years old) took part in the study. Two individual open-ended interviews were planned for each adolescent with the second interview occurring 4 to 5 weeks after the first interview. The second interview was complemented by the use of photovoice. Four focus groups, composed of the adolescents who took part in the individual interviews, were also conducted. Data analysis involved both thematic and content analysis. Findings revealed that adolescents conceptualized cancer risk in terms of specific risk factors, with lifestyle factors (e.g., smoking, diet/nutrition and physical inactivity) dominating their discourse. Adolescents rationalized risky health behaviours through use of cognitive strategies that included questioning and evaluating risk information, considering the benefits costs of the cancer risk, and downplaying the impact of the cancer risk. Use of these cognitive strategies helped to make cancer risks more acceptable to adolescents. While adolescents felt that cancer could not always be prevented, they did feel it was possible for individuals to delay getting cancer by lowering the impact of cancer risks through making the right choices. Although more research in this area is needed, the findings from this study may help inform cancer prevention and risk communication programmes and policies.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it