Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cancer survivors report a gap in work integration advice from healthcare professionals. This occurs despite physicians routinely providing comment upon survivors’ work abilities to insurers and employers. In order to understand the phenomena of survivors’ work integration from physicians’ perspectives, a vignette methodology was used. Vignettes were chosen as a means to explore physicians’ perspectives in a non-confrontational and sensitive manner. Vignettes, composed of photographs and narratives reflective of survivors’ lived experiences of work integration were presented to 10 physicians during individual interviews. In this manuscript, I outline my experience using vignettes, the learning I have achieved, and the modifications I intend to make before again similarly using vignettes with another stakeholder group. In this study, receptive participants expressed enjoyment of the real-life nature of the vignettes through which significant insights into the phenomena were successfully gleaned. In this case, vignettes were an effective means to sensitively explore physicians’ perspectives of cancer survivors’ work integration. Yet, considerations that I will undertake prior to the next stakeholder inquiry include incorporating findings from the physicians and modifying the presentation of survivors’ findings to be more applicable to that next stakeholder, reconsidering the number of vignettes used as well as the terminology and delivery mechanism, and refinement of questioning format.
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 | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
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.
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".