MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1578101376 · doi:10.1177/160940691501400109

First Nations, Inuit, and Métis Women's Experiences of Cancer Survivorship: Protocol for the National Picture Project

2015· article· en· W1578101376 on OpenAlexaffabout
Roanne Thomas, Wendy Gifford, Jennifer Poudrier, Ryan Hamilton, Carolyn Brooks, Tracy Scott, Tricia Morrison, Doris Warner, Chad Hammond

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Qualitative Methods · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsFirst Nations Health and Social Secretariat of ManitobaUniversity of New BrunswickUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhotovoiceJournaling file systemGeneral partnershipSpiritualityNursingPsychologyMedicineMedical educationPublic relationsPolitical scienceAlternative medicineEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Little is known about First Nations, Inuit, and Métis (FNIM) women's experiences with cancer, including how they relate to cultural and social factors such as geography, history, racism, identity, traditional values/practices, and spirituality. Research into FNIM women's strengths and challenges in relation to cancer is much needed. Our team, in partnership with Saint Elizabeth Health, is documenting the experiences and needs of 60 FNIM cancer survivors across Canada, using sharing sessions, photography (photovoice), journaling, and film. We will evaluate the impact of photography and journaling on the participants to assist with the future development of supportive programs and health- care delivery. This innovative research will result in a video, which will address gaps in knowledge and care. The video will then be screened in several communities and will be publicly available. In future projects, the findings and video will be used in supportive programs for cancer survivors and in educational initiatives for health professionals.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativehigh
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: yes
Qualitativehigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.287

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0090.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0040.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0860.010

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 head0.923
GPT teacher head0.801
Teacher spread0.122 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Qualitative MethodsSame topicParticipatory Visual Research MethodsFrench-language works237,207