MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156258633 · doi:10.1177/1049732310369139

The “Patient Patient”: The Trauma of Waiting and the Power of Resistance for People Living With Cancer

2010· article· en· W2156258633 on OpenAlexaffabout
Caitlin M. Mulcahy, Diana C. Parry, Troy D. Glover

Bibliographic record

VenueQualitative Health Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClubResistance (ecology)Citizen journalismPatient EmpowermentCancerHealth careNursingMedicinePsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Canada's health care system today, cancer patients are expected to endure long, often painful wait times. In this study we explored whether Gilda's Club (an organization that supports people affected by cancer) might increase opportunities to resist the role of the "patient patient," consequently providing a better understanding of how cancer patients cope with the long wait times in Canada's time-crunched health care system. The research presented here provides examples of the painful waiting experience for cancer patients. Yet, this research also provides examples of patients refusing to be patient. We argue that organizations like Gilda's Club can provide a space that facilitates resistance and allows patients to become more informed and more participatory in decision-making processes. We conclude that these findings reflect a gap in cancer care in Canada that might be addressed through integrating organizations like Gilda's Club into standard medical practice for cancer patients.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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 score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.553

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0270.032
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.448
GPT teacher head0.597
Teacher spread0.149 · 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

Citations53
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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