Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article updates mammography use by Canadian women aged 50 to 69, and reports trends from 1990 to 2008 among the provinces. Characteristics of non-users are examined. DATA SOURCES AND METHODS: Data from the 2008 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) were used to update mammography use and to examine factors associated with non-use. Historical estimates were produced using the 2000/2001,2003 and 2005 CCHS, the 1994/1995, 1996/1997 and 1998/1999 National Population Health Survey and the 1990 Health Promotion Survey. Frequency estimates, cross-tabulations and logistic regression analysis were used. RESULTS: In 2008, 72% of women aged 50 to 69 reported having had a mammogram in the past two years, up from 40% in 1990. The increase occurred from 1990 to 2000/2001; rates then stabilized. Between 1990 and 2000/2001, the difference in participation between women in the highest and lowest income quintiles gradually narrowed-from a 26- to a 12-percentage-point difference. In 2008, the disparity widened to 18 percentage points. Non-use was high in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island and Nunavut. Non-use was associated with being an immigrant, living in a lower income household, not having a regular doctor and smoking.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".