Assessing the content and comprehensiveness of provincial and territorial indoor tanning legislation in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Canadian provincial and territorial governments have enacted legislation in response to health risks of artificial ultraviolet radiation from indoor tanning. This legislation, which differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, regulates the operation of indoor tanning facilities. The content and comprehensiveness of such legislation-and its differences across jurisdictions-have not been analyzed. To address this research gap, we conducted a systematic, comprehensive scan and content analysis on provincial and territorial indoor tanning legislation, including regulations and supplementary information. METHODS: Legislative information was collected from the Canadian Legal Information Institute database and an environmental scan was conducted to locate supplementary information. Through a process informed by the content of the legislation, previous research and health authority recommendations, we developed a 59-variable codebook. Descriptive statistics were calculated. RESULTS: All provinces and one of three territories have legislation regulating indoor tanning. Areas of strength across jurisdictions are youth access restrictions (n = 11), posting of warning signs (n = 11), penalties (n = 11) and restrictions on advertising and marketing targeted to youth (n = 7). Few jurisdictions, however, cover areas such as protective eyewear (n = 4), unsupervised tanning (n = 4), provisions for inspection frequency (n = 4), misleading health claims in advertisements directed toward the general public (n = 2) and screening of high-risk clients (n = 0). CONCLUSION: All provinces and one territory have made progress in regulating the indoor tanning industry, particularly by prohibiting youth and using warning labels to communicate risk. Legislative gaps should be addressed in order to better protect Canadians from this avoidable skin cancer risk.
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 | 0.008 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".