MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077787218 · doi:10.5737/1181912x181614

Supportive care framework

2008· article· en· W2077787218 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Margaret I. Fitch

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUnderpinningConceptual frameworkNursingService (business)Service delivery frameworkThe Conceptual FrameworkPsychologyConceptual modelProcess managementKnowledge managementMedicineSociologyComputer scienceBusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Supportive Care Framework for Cancer Care was originally formulated in 1994 (Fitch, 1994). The framework was designed as a tool for cancer care professionals and program managers to conceptualize what type of help cancer patients might require and how planning for service delivery might be approached. The framework has been presented in various arenas and the number of requests has been growing for a wider distribution of a full description of the framework. The purpose of this article is to share the Supportive Care Framework for Cancer Care with the cancer nursing community. As a conceptual framework, it may be a useful tool for service or program planning, a basis to organize educational approaches in cancer care, or as a model underpinning research projects.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.007
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0230.006

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.443
Teacher spread0.334 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations401
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207