A Brief Update on Current Youth Access Laws NEARLY A QUARTER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
have reported using indoor tanning. The reasons stated for tanning include a desire to achieve a tanned appearance, to socialize and improve their mood, or to relax. 1 Safety concerns surround the addictive nature of tanning, as well as the increased risk for skin cancers, skin See related article aging, and immunosuppression due to the exposure of UV radiation. 2 As a consequence, there has been an alarming rise in melanoma incidence, especially in young women ages 15 to 39 years. 3 Indeed, it has been shown that tanning bed use increases the risk of melanoma by 75% when use occurs before age 35 years. 4 In response to these alarming trends, numerous health and medical organizations have characterized tanning beds as carcinogenic and encouraged increasing state regulations to limit youth access to tanning salons. 4 In February 2012, California became the first state to implement a universal tanning ban for minors
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".