Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives This article provides estimates of the reported level of colorectal cancer (CRC) testing in the Canadian population aged 50 or older in 2008. Data sources and methods The data are from the 2008 Canadian Community Health Survey. With weighted data, the percentage of people who had undergone CRC testing (fecal occult blood test in the past two years or endoscopy within the past fi ve years) was estimated. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were used to examine testing status in relation to personal, socio-economic and other health-related characteristics. Results In 2008, an estimated 40 % of Canadians aged 50 or older reported that they had had CRC testing. The percentage ranged from 28 % in Quebec to 53 % in Manitoba. Testing was associated with being 65 or older, higher income, having a regular doctor, being a non-smoker, and being physically active. Interpretation Organized CRC screening was limited in 2008, but may account for some of the differences in participation among the provinces. Keywords colonoscopy, colorectal neoplasms, endoscopy, fecal occult blood test, mass screening, sigmoidoscopy
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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".