Perception of the Saudi Community towards Human Papilloma Virus Vaccination in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To examine the awareness and perception of Saudi community towards Human Papillomavirus Vaccination. A cross-sectional study has examined the perception and awareness of Saudi individuals towards Human Papillomavirus HPV vaccination. A sample of 278 Saudi individuals were included. A close-ended survey questionnaire was employed to collect the data of Papillomavirus HPV vaccination. Around, 78.30% female and male participants were unaware of the availability of HPV vaccination against cervical cancer. 90.06% of females supported cervical cancer screening Pap smear by gynecologist after enduring vaccination. Only, 40.66% visited the gynecologist for screening. Results demonstrated 85.77% female agreed on receiving expensive vaccination. Conversely, 97.48% supported on HPV vaccination free of charge. A lack of knowledge about HPV, Pap smear, and cervical cancer. The data obtained can be used as a standard to devise effective awareness programs. Data was collected particularly from Saudi Arabia for evaluating Saudi community perception. Both males and females were observed to be interested in taking vaccination and prevention initiatives against the cervical cancer, whereas, there is a lack of awareness observed among the males and females included in the study.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".