MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Awareness of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Infection among Indigenous Males in North America and Oceania

2020· preprint· en· W3020411419 on OpenAlexafffund
Simran Bedi, Robert Strachan, Ingeborg Zehbe

Bibliographic record

VenuePreprints.org · 2020
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsThunder Bay Regional Research InstituteLakehead University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsIndigenousHuman papillomavirusHPV infectionTransmission (telecommunications)MedicineDemographyEnvironmental healthCervical cancerCancerSociologyBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We surveyed peer-reviewed literature on the awareness of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection among Indigenous males in North America and Oceania. Using keywords HPV plus male, men or boy, and ethnical filters such as Indigenous, Aboriginal or First Nations, we retrieved 47 articles based on titles of which we kept 14 after reading the abstracts. Reported HPV awareness was generally low in Indigenous males in North America with no peer-reviewed data from Oceania. The lower understanding by males compared to females was largely attributable to misconceptions about HPV-related diseases, their transmission, and prevention. Lack of awareness and concern toward the risk of contracting HPV infection in Indigenous males suggests an impediment in disseminating health information about this cancer-causing virus. Culturally sensitive education, with emphasis on Indigenous males, is needed to improve this group’s HPV knowledge. Researchers should also engage meaningfully with Indigenous communities by building rapport to achieve a positive change in attitude.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0120.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.152
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.251 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePreprints.org→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→