Men's lack of knowledge adds to the cervical cancer burden in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to determine the level of knowledge regarding cervical cancer among Black men living in Ga-Rankuwa, South Africa. A quantitative survey was conducted. The population consisted of 980 (n = 980) convenience sampled men. Self-reported data were gathered using a structured interview and a pre-tested questionnaire served as data gathering instrument. The study provided evidence that men living in Ga-Rankuwa did not have knowledge of cervical cancer. None of the sample mentioned the HPV as risk factor while some knew that having multiple sexual partners add to a woman's risk. It is, however, doubtful whether the respondents experienced themselves as those with the multiple partners. More than 90% of the sample (n = 963) reported to have had more than one sexual partner in the previous 5 years while less than a quarter indicated that they would have to change their sexual behaviour to prevent cervical cancer. Men add to the cervical cancer burden in South Africa as their knowledge would not enable them to protect their partners from HPV infections, motivate them to be screened or allow them to protect themselves against this dreadful disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".