Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to gauge the perceptions of Canadians toward genital warts, related health behaviors, and treatment preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey supported by an unrestricted grant from Graceway Canada was conducted in February 2011 by Leger Marketing. It included 9 demographic questions and 17 questions relating to genital wart perception (2 multiple-choice, 15 four-point rating from strongly agree to strongly disagree). RESULTS: The survey was completed by 1520 Canadian adults aged 18 to older than 75 years, of whom 52% (786/1520) were female. Fifty-two percent of respondents stated that they would monitor an unrecognized spot on their genitals, and only seek medical assistance if it did not go away. Only 43% (652/1520) said that they would stop having sex until the spots were gone. Although only 10% (158/1520) of respondents stated that they would not inform their partner, this was much higher among men (14%, 103/734) than women (7%, 55/786), with p ≤ .01. Concerns of being judged by friends/family were high (44%, 669/1520), especially among younger (18-34 y) Canadians (60%), with p ≤ .05. Regarding prevention, 32% (493/1520) of respondents believed that monogamy would protect against genital warts and 25% (373/1520) believed they are not at risk if they use a condom. Treatment preference was in favor of a cream rather than an "invasive" treatment (58%, 886/1520), particularly among younger (67%, 283/425, p ≤ .05) and male respondents (63%, 464/734, p ≤ .01). Sixty percent (921/1520) would worry that genital warts could not be resolved; and 44% (668/1520), that they would recur. CONCLUSIONS: Among Canadians, genital warts were associated with a fair degree of social stigma and potential negative impact on their psyche, especially for younger Canadians.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.028 | 0.003 |
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".