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

Supportive care framework

2008· article· en· W2077787218 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.578
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

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