Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient participation in treatment decision making is held as a virtue in clinical contexts, and has much to recommend it. Yet important questions have been raised about the assumptions underlying models of patient participation. Debates have arisen about the significance of medically defined risks and outcomes of treatment; the adequacy and relevance across social groups of the concept of autonomy; and the emphasis on the professional-patient dyad. This article contributes to the debate about treatment decision making with reference to a study focused on older women with cancer. Interviews with patients and cancer care professionals highlighted the salience to patients' treatment choices of experiential knowledge, social roles and responsibilities, and the health policy context. It appears that prevailing models of decision making may obscure patients' more typical decision processes as well as the social determinants of those choices.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.083 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".