Tanning equipment use: 2014 Canadian Community Health Survey.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tanning equipment use is related to the early onset of cancer, with the risk increasing as the duration and repetition of exposure increase. In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified tanning equipment use as carcinogenic to humans, and according to the World Health Organization, the risk of skin melanoma increases significantly when use begins before age 35. DATA AND METHODS: The rapid response component of the 2014 Canadian Community Health Survey collected data on the use of tanning equipment in the previous 12 months, including reasons for use, frequency/duration of use, precautions taken, and adverse reactions or injuries. This analysis examines the prevalence of self-reported indoor tanning in a nationally representative sample of Canadians aged 12 or older in the 10 provinces. RESULTS: In 2014, 4.5% of Canadians (an estimated 1.35 million) reported that they had used tanning equipment in the past year; 70.3% of them were female, and just over half of female users were aged 18 to 34. The prevalence of indoor tanning was highest among people with some postsecondary education and among those in higher income households (trend p-value ⟨ 0.0001). Most users reported fewer than 10 sessions in the past year. The most common reason (62.0%) was to develop a "protective" base tan. INTERPRETATION: Females made up the majority of tanning equipment users, particularly at ages 18 to 34. Efforts to increase awareness of the risks may be beneficial, given the high percentage of users who believed that indoor tanning offers some level of skin protection from future sun exposure.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it