MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2745244396 · doi:10.5737/23688076273268274

An Implementation Evaluation of the Wellness Beyond Cancer Survivorship Class: Who is attending?

2017· article· en· W2745244396 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Georden Jones, Caroline Séguin Leclair, Danielle Petrione-Westwood, Monique Lefèbvre, Robin Morash, Carrie M. Liska, Lynne Jolicoeur, Sophie Lebel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Oncology Nursing Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth and Wellbeing Research
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSurvivorship curveClass (philosophy)Cancer survivorshipCancerGerontologyCancer survivorPsychologyMedical educationMedicineComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast and endometrial cancer survivors referred to the Wellness Beyond Cancer Program were invited to a survivorship education class. As not all survivors attended the class, this study aimed to identify socio-demographic and medical characteristics, and survivorship needs that predict attendance. A chart review was conducted on survivors who completed a needs assessment survey between 2012 and 2014 (n=144 endometrial; n=170 breast). Class attendees' characteristics were compared to those of non-attendees using t-tests, chi-square analyses, and regression analysis. Univariate analyses showed that age, distance from hospital, emotional and physical needs, and receiving chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy were associated with class attendance. Distance from hospital and physical needs were identified as multivariate predictors. The results of this study will help inform class content, improve class attendance, and identify attendees' characteristics.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.162
GPT teacher head0.584
Teacher spread0.422 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Oncology Nursing JournalSame topicHealth and Wellbeing ResearchFrench-language works237,207