A Qualitative Analysis of Canadian Indoor Tanning Policies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The International Agency for Research on Cancer classifies artificial tanning devices as Group 1 human carcinogens. Studies have shown that use of indoor tanning before age 35 can increase the risk of melanoma development by 75%. It has therefore been recommended that indoor tanning use be restricted in individuals younger than age 18. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to review the state of provincial indoor tanning policies, especially in regards to use by youth across Canada, and what strategies are being implemented to enforce them. METHODS: Focused interviews were conducted with representatives from the provincial Ministries of Health across Canada in May and June 2014. Follow-up interviews were performed between February and May 2017. RESULTS: As of January 2018, regulations are in effect in all Canadian provinces restricting indoor tanning by minors and requiring display of signage warning of the risks of indoor tanning by salons. However, there are discrepancies among the provinces on how and if tanning salons are monitored and how and if these regulations are enforced. CONCLUSIONS: While implementing youth bans on indoor tanning is a promising start, all Canadian provinces need to ensure that efforts are being undertaken to ensure compliance with these policies to effectively combat the rising incidence of skin cancer among the Canadian population.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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".