Time Orientation Needs To Be Considered When Engaging In Cardiovasculr Risk Counseling With South Asians
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: Healthcare providers tend to have a future orientation when discussing disease risk with patients. It is unclear whether this approach is effective with south Asians relative to Whites residing in Canada. Methods: This was an exploratory study in which south Asian (100) and White (100) people were surveyed using the Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory. Mean subscale scores and their ranking were compared between ethnic, ethnic and sex, as well as ethnic and age groups. Results: South Asians had higher present-fatalistic and future time orientation scores than Whites. South Asians who had immigrated >5 years ago (and who were older), had higher present-fatalistic, but not future orientation scores, than those who had immigrated more recently or who were Canadian-born (and were younger). Women (particularly south Asian women) had higher past-negative and present-fatalistic scores than men. South Asians >65 years had higher past-negative, present-hedonistic, and present-fatalistic than Whites. Past-positive was differentially ranked highest by the greatest proportion of both south Asians (39%) and Whites (66%). Conclusions: Present-fatalistic orientations are associated with certain subgroups of the south Asians studied (those who had immigrated to Canada >5 years previously, were older, or were women). The findings question the appropriateness of delivering future-oriented health promotion interventions to south Asians, who may be more fatalistic.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 it