MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1965408556 · doi:10.5737/1181912x2211220

Screening for distress: Responding is a critical function for oncology nurses

2011· article· en· W1965408556 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreDalhousie UniversityCancer Care OntarioSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistressConceptualizationMedicineNursingOncology nursingPerspective (graphical)Psycho-oncologyNursing practiceCancerNurse educationClinical psychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The practice of routine screening for distress in cancer populations has been gaining worldwide support over the past several years with the conceptualization of distress as the sixth vital sign. Across Canada, experience with screening for distress is growing, as cancer facilities implement screening programs. Early learning from these efforts has emphasized the need for a programmatic approach and the importance of oncology nurses in screening and providing the initial response to distress. To date, little has been written from the nursing perspective about the oncology nursing role in a program screening for distress and responding to the identified patient concerns. This article describes the current thinking about distress; explores how screening for and responding to distress is integral to oncology nursing practice; and shares the early learning and experiences of cancer nurses in implementing screening for distress initiatives.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.883
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.303 · 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