Where did everybody go? Working with anxiety when cancer treatment ends
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anticipating the end of cancer treatment, we think we will be nothing but relieved. In most cases, there is significant relief, but also significant fear. To add to the difficulty, when cancer treatment finishes, so do most supportive programs. People expect us to be “back to normal” now that we “have our life back”, even though our perspective on life may well have changed during the process of cancer treatment. Ultimately, we can feel quite alone, worried about the cancer coming back and not being sure how to live this new reality.This workshop invites practicing psychosocial clinicians and allied health professionals to learn to integrate a host of effective holistic techniques to patients and caregivers at this uniquely stressful time. In this experiential workshop learn body-centered tools to soften the fear of recurrence, re-balance the nervous system and help people both settle and thrive into this “new normal” life.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".