Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Integrating Wellness into Cancer Care conference was held at the University of Toronto, October 4-5, 2007, and was dedicated to the memory of the late Dr. Véronique Benk. This article summarizes the workshops at that conference.The notion of wellness and an integrated approach should be introduced from the outset as part of the cancer patient's management. Having wellness as part of the treatment sets a standard for taking care of the patient's emotional, spiritual, physical, and nutritional needs, and for providing information on complementary therapies. A focus on holistic supportive care during treatment and survivorship is important.The whole medical team should support an integrative program. Referral to an education program and one-to-one assessments by a point person such as an advanced nurse practitioner, a social worker, or a psychological counsellor with appropriate special training should be mandatory. The concept of a pathfinder or cancer guide was discussed.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.047 | 0.019 |
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".