A Cross-Sectional Study of Indoor Tanning in Fitness Centres
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultraviolet (UV) radiation is a human carcinogen and is associated with the development of skin cancer. The promotion of indoor tanning (IT) at fitness centres is of particular concern as it reinforces the idea that a tan is associated with health and fitness. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of IT in fitness centres, with an emphasis on determining the financial costs, adherence to regulations, and safety precautions. METHODS: Ten cities, representing 9 different Canadian provinces, were chosen for the study. From each province, a minimum of 20 and a maximum of 30 fitness centres were randomly selected from the Yellow Pages website. Each fitness centre was contacted by the principal investigator and inquiries were made from a consumer's perspective. RESULTS: Of the 203 gyms surveyed, 43% (88/203) offered tanning facilities. Of these, 10.23% (9/88) were found to be noncompliant with the provincial IT regulations for age and/or time between tanning sessions. INTERPRETATION: Despite the known risks of IT, not all fitness centres are compliant with provincial legislations regarding IT, and some continue to promote tanning access to minors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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; 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".