Choctaw Nation Youth Sun Exposure Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The incidence of skin cancer is rising among American Indians (AI) but the prevalence of harmful ultraviolet light (UVL) exposures among AI youth is unknown. In 2013, UVL exposures, protective behaviors, and attitudes toward tanning were assessed among 129 AI and Non-Hispanic (NHW) students in grades 8-12 in Southeastern Oklahoma. Sunburn was reported by more than half the AI students and most of the NHW students. One-third of AI students reported never using sunscreen, compared to less than one-fifth of NHW students, but racial differences were mitigated by propensity to burn. Less than 10% of students never covered their shoulders when outside. Girls, regardless of race, wore hats much less often than boys. Regardless of race or sex, more than one-fourth of students never stayed in the shade, and more than one-tenth never wore sunglasses. The prevalence of outdoor tanning did not differ by race, but more than three-fourths of girls engaged in this activity compared to less than half the boys. Indoor tanning was reported by 45% of the girls, compared to 20% of girls nationwide, with no difference by race. Nearly 10% of boys tanned indoors. Among girls, 18% reported more than ten indoor tanning sessions. Over one-quarter of participants agreed that tanning makes people look more attractive, with no significant difference by race or sex. Investigations of UVL exposures should include AI youth, who have not been represented in previous studies but whose harmful UVL exposures, including indoor tanning, may place them at risk of skin cancer.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".