Sun exposure, sun protection and sunburn among Canadian adults.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ultraviolet radiation (UVR) exposure and a history of sunburn are important risk factors for skin cancer. Sunburn is more common among men, younger age groups, and people in higher income households. Sun protection measures also vary by sex, age, and socioeconomic characteristics. Associations between ambient UVR and sunburn and sun safety measures have not been quantified. DATA AND METHODS: A total of 53,130 respondents aged 18 or older answered a Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) module on sun safety, which was administered in six provinces from 2005 to 2014. The module contained questions about sunburn, time in the sun, and sun protection. These respondents were linked to an ambient erythemal UVR dataset representing the June-to-August mean. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were used to examine associations between population characteristics, sunburn, sun safety, time in the sun, and ambient UVR. RESULTS: Sunburn was reported by 33% of respondents and was more common among men, younger age groups, people who were not members of visible minorities, residents of higher income households, and individuals who were employed. On a typical summer day, a larger percentage of women than men sought shade and wore sunscreen, whereas a larger percentage of men wore a hat or long pants. As ambient summer UVR increased, women were more likely to apply sunscreen to their face, seek shade, or wear a hat (OR~1.02 to 1.09 per increase of 187 J/m² of erythemally-weighted UVR, or 5.4% of the mean); these associations were not observed among men. INTERPRETATION: Findings related to sunburn and sun protection were similar to those of previous studies. The association between ambient UVR and women's precautionary measures suggests that information about UVR may influence their decision to protect their skin.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".