How Can We Keep Immigrant Travelers Healthy? Health Challenges Experienced by Canadian South Asian Travelers Visiting Friends and Relatives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrant travelers who visit friends and relatives (VFR travelers) experience substantially higher rates of travel-related infections than other travelers, in part due to low uptake of pretravel health advice. While barriers to accessing advice have been identified, better characterization is needed to inform targeted interventions. We sought to understand how South Asian VFR travelers perceived and responded to travel-related health risks by conducting group interviews with 32 adult travelers from an ethnoculturally diverse Canadian region. Travelers positioned themselves as knowledgeable of key health risks, despite not seeking pretravel health advice. Their responses to risks were pragmatic and rooted in experience, but often constrained by competing concerns, including rushed travel, familial obligations, cost, and a desire to preserve authentic experiences. Moving beyond risk awareness to reinforcing the value of medical advice and intervention, in a manner that is sensitive to these unique concerns, is needed when delivering tailored health promotion messages to VFR travelers.
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 | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".