“We're All in the Same Boat”: A Review of the Benefits of Dragon Boat Racing for Women Living with Breast Cancer
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
This narrative review summarizes findings from quantitative and qualitative research literature that has been published over the past 15 years since an initial, community-based pilot study first challenged the long-held medical belief that vigorous, upper-body exercise would lead to lymphedema in women who were at risk due to treatments for breast cancer. Dragon boat racing originated in China more than 2000 years ago and has become a popular recreational and competitive support around the world. From the advent of the world's first breast cancer survivor dragon boat team, Abreast in a Boat launched in Vancouver, British Columbia, in 1996, there are now more than 140 breast cancer survivor dragon boat teams paddling and competing in 12 different countries. The wealth of quantitative and qualitative research that has ensued since that pilot study further supports the initial hypothesis that resistance exercise, for example, dragon boat paddling, is not only safe for women recovering from conventional breast cancer therapies but also shows that dragon boating has been embraced as a complementary exercise therapy by the cancer survivors participating in this magical sport.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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