MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104629298 · doi:10.1177/1049732302239601

Survivorship as Craft and Conviction: Reflections on Research in Progress

2003· article· en· W2104629298 on OpenAlexaff
Arthur W. Frank

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCraftSurvivorship curveConvictionNarrativeFocus groupService (business)PsychologyWork (physics)MoralitySociologySocial psychologyPolitical scienceHistoryBusinessEngineeringLawAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The choice of some illness survivors to engage in service to other ill people, and thus to focus their lives on illness longer than their own treatment requires, is not self-evident. The authors describes alternative cultural narratives of survivorship, proposes an understanding of survivorship as a form of craft, and considers the societal mortality that is reflected in survivor's accounts of their service work.

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)0.143
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.153
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.754

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1430.153
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0320.102
Scholarly communication0.0300.038
Open science0.0090.024
Research integrity0.0160.030
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.943
GPT teacher head0.774
Teacher spread0.168 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations51
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQualitative Health ResearchSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207