MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976335560 · doi:10.12968/bjon.2014.23.1.40

Complementary and alternative medicine in oncology nursing

2014· article· en· W1976335560 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Nursing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineOncologyOncology nursingFamily medicineAlternative medicineNursingPrayerHealth careIntegrative medicineNurse educationPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased globally, particularly among oncology patients. This study investigated the knowledge, experience and attitudes of oncology nurses towards CAM. A quantitative study was conducted in tertiary care hospitals in Karachi, Pakistan, where 132 oncology nurses were surveyed. The survey revealed that more than 50% of nurses had never heard about many of the CAM therapies used in Pakistan. Approximately 65% of the nurses had knowledge about prayer and less than 30% had experience of CAM education or training. In addition, the majority of nurses had seen patients using CAM and felt that their health status could be enhanced with the use of CAM. This study showed that oncology nurses had a positive experience of and attitude towards CAM, although they needed to enhance their knowledge of it to maximise patient satisfaction and quality of care.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.972
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.340 · 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