MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142057257 · doi:10.3747/co.19.1222

Melanoma Prevention: Are We Doing Enough? A Canadian Perspective

2012· article· en· W2142057257 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Anthony M. Joshua

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersHealth CanadaBristol-Myers Squibb CanadaBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineMelanomaPerspective (graphical)Cancer researchArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Melanoma is the most dangerous form of skin cancer, and its incidence is increasing significantly among Canadians. In parallel with the rising incidence and morbidity, the financial burden caused by this disease will continue to increase dramatically for the government and for individuals alike. More concerted effort to raise awareness of melanoma in Canada is therefore needed.Risk factors-such as family history, childhood sunburn exposure, and age-play a significant role in an individual's likelihood to develop melanoma. Ultraviolet radiation exposure is the most modifiable variable in melanoma causation. It is therefore important for the general public, in particular the country's youth, to understand the consequences of lifestyle choices-especially tanning bed use and "sun worshipping." Many of these issues are not being addressed fully at either the national or the provincial level, with Canadian efforts trailing those of other nations facing similar challenges. Canada also has workforce issues, with an inadequate distribution and number of physicians who can detect and treat melanoma at an early curative stage. With proper education and public awareness, melanoma prevention can be an achievable goal in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.064
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0100.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.001

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.429
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2012
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207