MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025098885 · doi:10.1177/084456211404600106

Designing Tailored Messages about Smoking and Breast Cancer: A Focus Group Study with Youth

2014· article· en· W3025098885 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Joan L. Bottorff, Rebecca Haines‐Saah, John L. Oliffe, L C Struik, Laura Bissell, Chris P Richardson, Carolyn Gotay, Kenneth C. Johnson, Peter J. Hutchinson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Nursing Research · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth CanadaOkanagan CollegeSummit Pacific CollegeUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusOkanagan University College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFocus groupBreast cancerRelevance (law)PsychologyGender studiesSmoking preventionHumanitiesSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceArtPublic healthCancerAnthropologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to design an approach to supporting the development of gender- and Aboriginal-specific messages regarding the link between tobacco exposure and breast cancer, drawing on youth perspectives. Focus groups were held with 18 girls (8 First Nations and Métis) and 25 boys (12 First Nations and Métis) to solicit advice in the design of messages. Transcribed data were analyzed for themes. Girls preferred messages that included the use of novel images, a personal story of breast cancer, and ways to avoid secondhand smoke. Boys endorsed messages that were "catchy" but not "cheesy" and had masculine themes. First Nations and Métis participants confirmed the use of Aboriginal symbols in messages as signalling their relevance to youth in their communities. The results can be used as a guide in developing tailored health promotion messages. Challenges in developing gender-appropriate messages for youth are described.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Nursing ResearchSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207