Framework PEACE: An organizational model for examining physical exercise across the cancer experience
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
The primary purpose of this article is to provide a framework for organizing research on physical exercise and cancer control. A secondary purpose is to use this framework to provide an overview of the extant literature and to offer directions forr future research. The proposed framework, entitled Physical Exercise Across the Cancer Experience (PEACE), divides the cancer experience into 6 time periods: 2 prediagnosis (i.e., prescreening and screening/diagnosis) and 4 postdiagnosis (i.e., pretreatment, treatment, posttreatment, and resumption). Based on these time periods, 8 general cancer control outcomes are highlighted. Two cancer control outcomes occur prediagnosis (i.e., prevention and detection), and 6 occur postdiagnosis (i.e., buffering, coping, rehabilitation, health promotion, palliation, and survival). An overview of the physical exercise literature indicates that only I time period (i.e., prescreening) and cancer control outcome (i.e., prevention) has received significant research attention. Some time periods (i.e., treatment and resumption) and cancer control outcomes (i.e., coping and health promotion) have received modest research attention, whereas other time periods (i.e., screening/diagnosis, pretreatment, and posttreatment) and cancer control outcomes (i.e., detection, buffering, rehabilitation, palliation, and survival) have received only minimal attention. It is hoped that Framework PEACE will stimulate a more comprehensive and in-depth inquiry into the role of physical exercise in cancer control.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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