Breast and cervical cancer screening : knowledge, attitudes, and practices of Vietnamese Canadian women living in Toronto, Ontario / by Tue Tran Nghi Nguyen.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and cervical cancer is the second most \ncommon cancer, among Vietnamese women in North America. This ranking replicates \nthe order of cancer prevalence among women residing in Vietnam. Unfortunately, \nUnfortunately, Vietnamese women are less likely to report ever having had recommended \nscreening procedures for these cancers and are more likely to be overdue for them than \nwomen in the general populations (Miller, Kolonel, & Bernstein, 1996). Many factors \nhave been highlighted from previous studies to shed light into this cancer prevalence. \nThese factors include but not limited to accessibility of service, lack of knowledge on \nbreast and cervical cancers, inadequate number of female physicians, language barrier, \netc. Therefore, the overall purpose of this project is to examine the knowledge, attitudes, \nand practices of Vietnamese Canadian women ages 40 to 60 toward breast and cervical \ncancer screenings. \n \nObjectives of the Study: \n \n1. To identify the possible barriers in race or ethnicity, culture, and socioeconomic \nstatus (SES) that Vietnamese Canadian women face in their efforts to take preventive \nmeasures and participate in breast and cervical cancer screening. \n2. To make recommendations and develop strategies for ethnic-focused breast and \ncervical cancer health promotion.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".