Prevalence of tanning equipment use among Canadians
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to collect prevalence estimates of indoor tanning usage and associated injuries in Canada. The rapid response component of the 2019 Canadian Community Health Survey collected data on the use of tanning equipment in the previous 12 months, including reasons for use, frequency/duration of use, precautions taken and adverse reactions or injuries. The 2019 research findings were as follows, an estimated 3.0% (95% CI: 2.5-3.4%) of Canadians reported that they had used indoor tanning equipment in the past year. Among users, 71.1% (95% CI: 63.9-78.3%) were female and females aged 18-34 were significantly more prevalent users compared to females aged 45 or older. The prevalence of indoor tanning was higher among people without a university degree; however, there were no differences in prevalence by household income or region. Most users indicated they used indoor tanning equipment within a tanning salon (75.3%: 95% CI: 69.1-81.6%) and the most common reason for usage was to develop a "protective" base tan (72.1%: 95% CI: 65.2-78.9%). Over one third (39.2%: 95% CI: 31.1-47.2%) of all users reported 10 or more sessions in the past year. The prevalence of indoor UV tanning usage is declining in Canada. Similar to results in 2014, the majority of users continue to be female, with a large number in the 18 to 34 age group.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".