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
Women living with metastatic (stage IV) breast cancer face unique challenges, including arduous treatments, side effects, chronic symptom burden, and emotional distress. Nevertheless, most research has paradoxically focused on optimizing quality of life in women with early-stage, non-metastatic breast cancer. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) is an evidence-based, third-wave cognitive behavioral therapy that focuses on creating 'a life worth living' by promoting meaning and purpose and optimizing quality of life. ACT may be particularly well-suited for women with metastatic breast cancer as it addresses salient existential concerns, while allowing for the co-occurrence of feelings of grief and loss that are normal and expected when facing a life-limiting prognosis. This manuscript describes the rationale and study design of a pilot randomized controlled trial to develop and assess the feasibility and acceptability of a tailored ACT intervention for women living with metastatic breast cancer. Participants (N = 30) will be randomized 1:1 to either ACT, cognitive behavioral stress management (CBSM), or a usual care control. Both ACT and CBSM are 8-week, group-based interventions that will be delivered online. Primary outcomes are rates of acceptance, retention, and satisfaction. Preliminary effects on variables of interest, including meaning and purpose, psychological flexibility, and several domains of quality of life, will also be examined. Findings will inform the conduct of a full-scale randomized controlled trial of our tailored ACT intervention in women living with metastatic breast cancer.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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