Adolescents had poor knowledge about Papanicolaou (cervical) smear screening and identified many barriers to being screened
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
Kahn JA, Chiou V, Allen JD , et al. Beliefs about Papanicolaou smears and compliance with Papanicolaou smear follow-up in adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med1999 Oct; 153 : 1046 –54 [OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] QUESTION: How do adolescent girls understand and perceive Papanicolaou (Pap or cervical) smear screening and barriers to compliance? Qualitative study using focus groups and indepth, semistructured interviews. 2 clinics in a children's hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 15 adolescents (mean age 18.7 y, 8 African-Americans, 5 with children, 11 in school, 7 with a history of sexually transmitted diseases) were approached and all had individual interviews. Adolescents who had been sexually active and who had normal and abnormal cervical smears were selected. Only a proportion of the latter group returned for follow up. The interview guide was developed from data in 3 focus groups with 12 adolescents. The content was derived from 4 models (health belief model, social cognitive theory, theory of planned behaviour, … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DArchives%2Bof%2BPediatrics%2Band%2BAdolescent%2BMedicine%26rft.stitle%253DArch%2BPediatr%2BAdolesc%2BMed%26rft.aulast%253DKahn%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BA.%26rft.volume%253D153%26rft.issue%253D10%26rft.spage%253D1046%26rft.epage%253D1054%26rft.atitle%253DBeliefs%2BAbout%2BPapanicolaou%2BSmears%2Band%2BCompliance%2BWith%2BPapanicolaou%2BSmear%2BFollow-up%2Bin%2BAdolescents%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Farchpedi.153.10.1046%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F10520612%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/archpedi.153.10.1046&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10520612&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F3%2F3%2F92.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000083013000006&link_type=ISI
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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