http://canadianoncologynursingjournal.com/index.php/conj/article/view/1053
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BUT: Cette étude s'est intéressée à l'expérience de survivants du cancer qui sont demeurés sur le marché du travail pendant leurs traitements ou y sont retournés après. MÉTHODOLOGIE: À l'aide d'un devis exploratoire qualitatif, huit entrevues individuelles ont été réalisées auprès de patients traités pour différents cancers qui occupaient tous un emploi avant de recevoir le diagnostic. RÉSULTATS: Les participants ont exprimé que le travail leur procurait un sentiment de normalité et d'identité personnelle, qu'il leur donnait un objectif. Sauf pour une participante, tous ont formulé les avantages de fréquenter un milieu de travail compréhensif. Plusieurs participants ont admis avoir vécu un stress financier, ignorant où trouver de l'aide financière. CONCLUSION: D'autres recherches sont nécessaires afin de mieux explorer comment l'équipe soignante et l'employeur peuvent promouvoir des milieux de travail favorables et faciliter l'accès des personnes cancéreuses aux ressources financières.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.416 | 0.090 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".