Vitamin D and Sun Exposure: A Community Survey in Australia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sun exposure carries both harms and benefits. Exposing the skin to the sun is the main modifiable cause of skin cancers, which exert a considerable health and economic burden in Australia. The most well-established benefit of exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation is vitamin D production. Australia has the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world but, despite the high ambient UV radiation, approximately one quarter of the population is estimated to be vitamin D deficient. Balancing the risks and benefits is challenging and requires effective communication. We sought to provide a snapshot of public knowledge and attitudes regarding sun exposure and vitamin D and to examine the associations between these factors and sun protective behaviors. In 2020 we administered an online survey; 4824 participants with self-reported fair or medium skin color were included in this analysis. Only 25% and 34% of participants were able to identify the amount of time outdoors needed to maintain adequate vitamin D status in summer and winter, respectively and 25% were concerned that sunscreen use inhibits vitamin D synthesis. This lack of knowledge was associated with suboptimal sun protection practices. Public education is warranted to prevent over-exposure, while supporting natural vitamin D production.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".