Cancer among the circumpolar Inuit, 1989–2003. I. Background and methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This is first of 2 papers on the Circumpolar Inuit Cancer Review, an international collaborative effort involving researchers and health officials from Alaska, Canada and Greenland. It covers the period 1989-2003, updating the last review (1969-1988) and together provides an overview of the trends and patterns of cancer among the Inuit in 3 countries and over a 35-year period. METHODS: Inuit cancer cases by age-sex group and anatomic site were obtained from the regional cancer registries. The sources of the age-sex distribution of various Inuit populations include the population registry (Greenland), and annual estimates and periodic censuses (Alaska and Canada). Incidence rates were age-standardization by the direct method to the standard world population of the International Agency for Research on Cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This project demonstrates the feasibility of international partnerships in cancer surveillance, and when these partnerships are extended to other diseases and health conditions, they can contribute to the development of a Circumpolar Health Observatory.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".