When third spaces become therapeutic: The value of complementary therapies and the search for meaning in tertiary care cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a side to suffering that is surprisingly resilient during times of extreme adversity.Within the context of patient-centred care, “third spaces” are public spaces that exist in-between the home and work environments that allow people to gather informally to offer support, empathy and learn from each other.With the current movement towards whole person care, patients have become increasingly vocal about the need for and the value of physical ‘third spaces” within tertiary clinical settings that provide opportunity to just be, to share, to give or to receive support. Patients who participate in meaning making workshops, yoga, creative arts therapies, or mindfulness sessions have reported the benefits of experiencing a safe place to explore difficult emotions, discover connections, and confront existential questions. TThe MUHC Cedars CanSupport is a vital non-profit program at the McGill University Health Centre under the Cancer Care Mission’s Supportive and Palliative Care Division. A variety of complementary therapies are offered individually or in groups/workshops to cancer patients and their families as adjuvant therapies to conventional cancer treatments. These therapies aim to increase self-awareness and self-expression, and to reignite agency during times of suffering.This presentation will include testimonials to describe the unique and beneficial experiences patients have derived from complementary therapies. The perspectives of healthcare providers, who are simultaneously facilitators, participants, and witnesses to the search for meaning, will also be explored. Taken together, these narratives can lead to further insight and innovative practices to facilitate the transformational potential for growth during deep suffering.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".