The Evolution of Cancer Control Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four phases in the evolution of cancer control frameworks are reviewed, highlighting how national Canadian and United States planning and implementation activities have built on each other’s work to define and guide cancer control research. Hallmarks have come to be: ( a ) coordination of the cycle that applies research to practice and policy decisions; ( b ) synthesis of knowledge at each phase of cancer control framework; ( c ) a focus on populations and public health with feedback loops between fundamental and applied research; and ( d ) interdisciplinary integration of the biological, behavioral, social, and other population sciences. Current research priorities and initiatives based on the research framework now common to both Canada and the United States are described. We conclude by calling for an international forum for the systematic advancement of cancer control research, and closer ties between the cancer control communities in North America.
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 | 0.280 | 0.208 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.029 | 0.028 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".