MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775140627 · doi:10.1177/1049732317746381

How Can We Keep Immigrant Travelers Healthy? Health Challenges Experienced by Canadian South Asian Travelers Visiting Friends and Relatives

2017· article· en· W2775140627 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Savage, Laura C. Rosella, Natasha S. Crowcroft, Jasleen Arneja, Eileen de Villa, Maureen Horn, Kamran Khan, Monali Varia

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalToronto Public HealthPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionImmigrationMedicineTravel medicineMedical adviceIntervention (counseling)Health promotionFamily medicinePsychologyEnvironmental healthNursingPublic healthGeographyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.139

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0150.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.382
GPT teacher head0.534
Teacher spread0.152 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207