MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6980460614

Cervical Cancer Screening in Tanga, Tanzania: A Collaborative Approach Based in Connection.

2023· dissertation· en· W6980460614 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCervical Cancer and HPV Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCervical cancerGeneral partnershipDocumentationFocus groupCervical screeningCervical cancer screeningHealth careQualitative research
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cervical cancer is a significant global health issue, it is among the most common causes of death for women around the world. The greatest cervical cancer cases occur in lower-middle income countries where there is a lack of resources to support cervical screening and follow-up care. There is a need for research that explores the nature of international partnerships and collaborative factors that contribute to cervical cancer prevention in low-resource settings.\nThis qualitative study examines the experience of clinicians working in an international collaboration, with Canadians and Tanzanians, to implement cervical screening and follow-up care in Tanga, Tanzania. The 2023 study aimed to gain insight into the factors that impact the strength and sustainability of their collaborative project. An iterative method using both focus group (n = 8) and key-informant interviews (n = 3) was used to explore the perspectives of Canadian and Tanzanian collaborators. \nParticipants highlighted the factors that, in their experience, contributed to a strong foundation for a collaborative relationship including a focus on local priorities, trust and reliability, shared decision-making, care for patients and partners, and a genuine interest in learning. Logistical factors such as their intentional integration into the existing clinical structure, budgeting with consideration for community needs, and documentation tools such as record books and visual care paths supported their work. The reflections of participants who have worked together in a long-term mentorship, sponsorship, and partnership contributed valuable knowledge regarding the establishment of strong, sustainable collaborations in the prevention of cervical cancer in Tanga, Tanzania.\n\nKeywords: Cervical cancer prevention, cervical screening, women’s health promotion, cross-cultural partnership, global health, HIC-LMIC collaboration, clinician’s perspective, cervical cancer burden, Tanga, Tanzania

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.292 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)→Same topicCervical Cancer and HPV Research→French-language works237,207→