Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by Chinese Individuals Living with Cancer in British Columbia
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used around the world for cancer. Preliminary research indicates that cultural factors influence cancer patients decisions to use, with significant associations seen between ethnicity and prevalence and type of CAM use. To enhance a culturally-appropriate understanding of CAM use in Chinese cancer patients in BC, this study explored a sample of Chinese cancer patients to gain: (1) the general conceptualization of CAM use; (2) the meaning of CAM use in relation to cancer; (3) the patterns of CAM use prior to and after cancer diagnosis; (4) the reasons for CAM use; and (5) the socio-cultural process in making decision about CAM use. A naturalistic, descriptive study design was used that incorporated semi-structural ethnographic interviewing and qualitative data analysis. The results of this study provide insights about the pattern, reasons, meaning, as well as cultural and socioeconomic factors underpinning the use of CAM. The CAM decision-making (DM) process was found to be nonlinear and comprised of four distinct phases: fitting with the cultural belief framework/lifestyle, seeking information and clarification, evaluating the effectiveness of CAM use, and balancing the cost and benefits of CAM use.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 it