Patients with cancer believed that chemotherapy had to “hurt” or “cause side effects” to be effectiveCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are cancer patients’ perceptions of adjuvant chemotherapy? Ethnography. Cancer treatment centre in western Canada. 30 patients with colon or rectal cancer who were regular, irregular, or 1-time participants in a support group. Field notes were recorded after participant observation at monthly support group meetings lasting 1.5 hours and events, including a full-day retreat and a colorectal cancer forum. The support group was open to patients, caregivers, supporters, and occasional observers. In-depth semistructured interviews were also conducted with 8 participants, with questions probing topics related to cancer diagnosis, treatments, and the support group. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim; both data sets were analysed for themes. Side effects of chemotherapy . Many patients had ongoing side effects after active chemotherapy, including chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, whereas some patients had only a few side effects. A dominant idea expressed in the support groups was the belief that for chemotherapy to be effective, it had to “hurt” or “cause side effects.” When …
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".