Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: In an effort to mitigate the negative psychological sequelae of a cancer diagnosis and cancer treatment, efforts have been made to explore a variety of psychosocial issues and interventions. This article describes the provision and preliminary evaluation of a novel psychosocial service delivery, a residential "retreat" program called Tapestry, which is run under the aegis of the established cancer care community in Alberta, Canada. OVERVIEW: Retreat programs offer a novel way to provide psychosocial support for those persons who are living with cancer. The retreats are unique in the provision of a respite and the opportunity to address the isolation and other existential issues arising from a cancer diagnosis. The program described in this article has provided such a service six times per year since 1998. The intervention is described, and preliminary evaluation data are presented. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Cancer care has begun to move beyond a solely biomedical paradigm toward a more holistic ethos in service delivery and research orientation. While the face value of and demand for such programming continues to grow, few residential psychosocial programs are offered under the auspices of conventional cancer care centers, and little work has been done to examine the nature and possible efficacy of retreat programs as a valid forum for psychosocial service delivery.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.304 | 0.104 |
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".