MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079025420 · doi:10.1188/14.onf.461-469

The Physical Activity Preferences of Gynecologic Cancer Survivors

2014· article· en· W2079025420 on OpenAlexaffabout
A Tyrrell, Melanie R. Keats, Chris M. Blanchard

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsResearch CanadaDalhousie UniversityCancer Care Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGynecologic cancerFamily medicineGerontologyPopulationNova scotiaCancerInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To identify physical activity (PA) preferences of gynecologic cancer survivors (GCSs) and to understand the reasons for them. DESIGN: Population-based, cross-sectional mailed survey and semistructured interviews with a subsample. SETTING: Nova Scotia, Canada. SAMPLE: 239 GCSs completed the survey, and 16 participated in an interview. METHODS: GCSs identified from a provincial cancer registry completed a questionnaire assessing PA preferences. Survey respondents were asked to participate in a substudy exploring PA preferences through a semistructured interview. MAIN RESEARCH VARIABLES: Self-reported PA and PA preferences. FINDINGS: Analyses indicated that participants were interested in a PA program. Interviews highlighted that PA counseling was highly desired and should include discussions about the benefits and appropriate amounts of PA, as well as available opportunities for PA. CONCLUSIONS: GCSs have preferences regarding characteristics of PA discussions and programs. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING: Oncology nurses are integral to the promotion of PA in GCSs. Providing oncology nurses with training opportunities to learn about PA for cancer survivors is an important consideration for cancer centers in ensuring a satisfactory experience for cancer survivors.

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 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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.960
Threshold uncertainty score0.747

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207