MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333648639 · doi:10.5864/d2016-005

Characterizing the risk of melanoma and use of indoor tanning beds in high-risk groups to inform public health regulations

2016· article· en· W2333648639 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Casey Panning, April K Smith, Olivia Spohn, Leah van Wesenbeeck

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSkin Protection and Aging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental healthLegislationLegislaturePublic healthSunscreening AgentsSunbathingMedicineBusinessSkin cancerMelanomaIntervention (counseling)Political scienceDermatologyNursingCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is concern about increasing incidence of melanoma and its association with indoor tanning devices. Overall, melanoma and indoor tanning devices exhibit a dose–response relationship; risk factors characterized for melanoma include age, gender, skin complexion, knowledge level, social norms, and location. Currently, legislative practices differ across Canada. Recommendations regarding intervention strategies, information dissemination, and legislation are discussed to inform public health regulations regarding the use of indoor tanning devices.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health ReviewSame topicSkin Protection and AgingFrench-language works237,207