Who visits mobile UK services providing cancer information and support in the community?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People can access a variety of sources of information and support when they have questions about cancer according to their needs. There are various sources of information and support for cancer beyond the health-care setting. In this study, we set out to assess reasons for visiting two mobile cancer information and support services in the UK during 2006. Data were collected about each visitor by staff on the mobile services. The two mobiles travelled to 109 UK locations over a 7-month period. Fifty-nine per cent of visitors were women. Thirty-one per cent of visitors had (had) cancer; very few were still undergoing treatment. For 95% of visitors the visit had been spontaneous rather than pre-planned, and 89% of visits lasted <15 min. Most visitors required information or support for themselves, but a third requested information for someone else. A quarter of enquiries were about cancer prevention and early detection (e.g. screening, genetic testing, lifestyle). The mobiles appear to serve an important function in providing information and support in the community where visitors can drop in for an informal conversation with trained members of staff to ask questions and receive support in relation to cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".