‘Being known’: patients' perspectives of the dynamics of human connection in cancer care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the context of a large study of effective and ineffective cancer care communications from the perspective of patients with cancer, the authors documented the pervasiveness of the desire for human connection. Analyzing accounts from 200 patients with diverse cancer experiences, they concluded that, while anonymity is generally antithetical to a comfortable cancer care encounter, there are wide variations in what it means to 'be known' in a meaningful way. In this discussion, a description of the dynamics of being known and not being known within the cancer care encounter is presented, and a range of variations considered. By illuminating the manner in which communication influences human connection within the cancer care context, the findings of this study challenge some current research directions and propose alternative conceptualizations that might better orient future inquiry to enhance practice.
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 | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| 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 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".