Dying to Learn: A Scoping Review of Breast and Cervical Cancer Studies Focusing on Black Canadian Women
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: In Canada, data on race/ethnicity are not routinely collected. Black Canadian women may be under-screened for cervical/breast cancer and may be predisposed to worse outcomes, however data are difficult to find. OBJECTIVES: A scoping review was conducted to identify common themes and gaps in the literature regarding cervical/breast cancer prevention and management in Black Canadian women. METHODS: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus databases (2003-2018) and grey literature were searched. Relevant studies were selected, data were charted, and themes were extracted. RESULTS: Twenty-three studies met inclusion criteria. Women from sub-Saharan Africa appear to have lower cervical and breast cancer screening rates; those of Caribbean/Latin American origin appear to have screening rates comparable to the general population; no studies reported prevalence or mortality rates for Black Canadian women. CONCLUSION: There is a paucity of health research on breast and cervical cancer specific to Black Canadian women.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it