An Analysis of Social Work Oncology Network Listserv Postings on the Commission of Cancer's Distress Screening Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a qualitative study of listserv postings by members of the Social Work Oncology Network (SWON) in response to the Commission on Cancer's 2011 guidelines for distress screening of cancer patients. Archived listserv postings for the period of December 2010 to November 2011 were deidentified and a sample was derived by a list of keywords for the analysis. Aims of the study included describing the general categories and themes of the postings devoted to the new distress screening standard and examining the process of facilitation of mutual support and information exchange by oncology social workers in response to the new screening standards. During the 12-month timeframe there were 242 unique listserv postings sampled for the analysis. Oncology social worker (OSW) discussion of the distress screening guidelines remained a constant topic over the 12 months, and major themes that emerged from the data included processes of implementation of distress screening in cancer centers, screening policies and protocols, screening tool choice, and oncology social worker professional identity. The SWON listserv members used the listserv as a mechanism to post their requests for information on screening, to share their experiences in the beginning stages of implementing the guidelines, and to build support for legitimizing oncology social workers as the lead profession in the implementation of the guidelines in member cancer centers.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".