MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2564073615 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v9n6p176

Women's Perception of Barriers to Breast Self-examination (BSE)

2016· article· en· W2564073615 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Motahare Pilevarzadeh, Hakime Hosseinrezaei, Mohammad Reza Aflatoonian, Foozieh Rafati, Fatemeh Mashayekhi

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast self-examinationNonprobability samplingBreast cancerPerceptionMedicineFamily medicinePopulationPsychologyGynecologyCancerEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monthly BSE is an important screening behavior for early detection of breast cancer. However, despite these advantages, many people refuse this medical behavior. The goal of this study has been to make women aware of barriers to women's BSE. In this study, 19 women who did BSE were selected by purposive sampling. Data were collected using semi-structured interviews and the content analysis was used for data analysis. Based on the result analysis, two themes related to women’s perception of barriers to BSE including lack of training programs in the field of BSE and the attitudes and beliefs towards self-examination were obtained. Training courses on breast cancer and BSE screening program for women (vulnerable poor population) is necessary so as to change their beliefs and culture in order to promote this health behavior.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health Science→Same topicGlobal Cancer Incidence and Screening→French-language works237,207→