MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144702324 · doi:10.1200/jco.2005.09.064

Humor and Oncology

2005· article· en· W2144702324 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony M. Joshua, Angela Cotroneo, Stephen Clarke

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHumor Studies and Applications
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpecialtyPatient careAlternative medicineMEDLINEFamily medicineOncologyNursingPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most clinical oncologists face the general perception that their specialty is constantly both humorless and depressing. The truth, as many medical oncologists are aware, is that the specialty offers a great deal of emotional variability. Anecdotally, the use of humor is widespread in the oncologist-patient relationship and in patient literature. Humor serves many roles for the patient, their family, and the treating physician. Limited evidence suggests that the use of humor is becoming more widespread within patientbased literature; the profession has largely ignored this aspect of cancer care.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.017
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.254
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations33
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicHumor Studies and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207