MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2275356727

Breast-health screening perceptions of Chinese Canadian immigrant women aged 30 to 69

2013· article· en· W2275356727 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fung Kuen Heidi Sin

Bibliographic record

VenueSSRN Electronic Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationMedicinePerceptionFamily medicineDemographic economicsGerontologyPolitical sciencePsychologyEconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this qualitative case study was to explore and describe the perceptions of breast-health screening among Chinese Canadian immigrant females, aged 30 to 69 and barriers that prevented them from having breast-health screening. Fifteen in-depth interviews and two focus groups of six Chinese Canadian immigrant women were conducted. The study was aided by NVivo 9 software in coding process, six themes were identified. The findings revealed Chinese Canadian immigrant women were influenced by the Chinese cultural beliefs and practices rather than practicing screening for prevention of diseases. Majority of the participants were aware of the impact of breast cancer, benefits of screening but not aware of the screening program. The findings provided policymakers, health care leaders, and officials of public health units evidence-based information to address low participation rates in breast-health screening among Chinese Canadian immigrant females. Recommended strategies to promote breast-health screening included culturally sensitive linguistic educational programs, recommendations by physicians, extension of the operating hours of breast-health screening clinics, and community-based outreach educational program.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0090.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSSRN Electronic Journal→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→