Knowledge, attitudes and barriers toward breast and cervical cancer screening of French and Aboriginal women in Timmins, Ontario / by Michelle Haavaldsrud.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
"The primary objectives of the study were to explore Aboriginal women's current cervical health practices and cervical cancer screening (CCS) utilization, to identify Aboriginal women's knowledge and risk associated with cervical cancer, and to describe Aboriginal women's level of satisfaction with primary health care nurse practitioner (NP) services delivered through an Aboriginal health access centre (AHAC). The research showed that this cohort of women currently meets the Ontario program objective to increase those women ever having been screened to 95% by 2010. More than 60% of the participants in phase 1 had three cervical cancer risk factors, with 68% of first pregnancies reported as occurring by age 20, and 62% self-identified as current smokers, of whom 93% reported regular smoking by age 19. NP services, available since 1999 through AHAC, provide on-reserve Well Women Clinics that have contributed to a marked decrease in status on-reserve Aboriginal women's reports of last Pap test greater than 2 years ago. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)"--Proquest Theses.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".