MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The use of research‐based theatre in a project related to metastatic breast cancer

2000· article· en· W1986244553 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

VenueHealth Expectations · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicParticipatory Visual Research Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoToronto Metropolitan UniversitySunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerDisseminationQualitative researchMetastatic breast cancerMedicineWork (physics)Medical educationCancerNursingComputer scienceSociologyInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research-based theatre represents an innovative approach to disseminating the results of qualitative studies. In this paper, we provide a rationale for the importance of research-based theatre and also review previous work that has been done in the area. We then describe our experience in transforming research data into a dramatic production, Handle with Care? This production was based on two studies - one with women with metastatic breast cancer, and the other with medical oncologists treating breast cancer patients. Results from ongoing assessment of the project are reported. We discuss some of the factors related to the success of Handle with Care? and reflect on what has been learned about the process of developing dramatic pieces related to serious illness.

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)0.004
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.810
GPT teacher head0.729
Teacher spread0.081 · 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