Caring for cancer survivors with the popular expressive arts
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Research has demonstrated considerable health benefits derived from incorporating the arts in health care. Yet, the process of translating research knowledge into clinical practice requires a sensitive understanding of the practice context. In this article, we consider the challenges to clinicians’ integration of the popular, expressive art forms into their practice. We assess these art forms for their potential value for the health and well-being of breast cancer survivors in light of the implementation challenges, as perceived by surveyed health care practitioners. Over 90 per cent of the responding practitioners deemed the popular expressive arts to have healing potential for people with cancer. While surveyed clinicians believe in the health benefits of arts, they report considerable challenges to incorporating the creative arts into their practices. We conclude by advocating for clinicians’ education, expanded scopes of practice, further research and a reorganization of clinical work so that clinicians can integrate the arts into their practices.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it