An evaluation of the Interdisciplinary Psychosocial Oncology Research Group and Laboratory: An initiative to enable intersectoral and interdisciplinary collaboration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Psychosocial oncology (PSO) is an interdisciplinary field that is often practised and researched in disciplinary silos. The Interdisciplinary PSO Research Group and Laboratory (IPSORGL) was developed in Ottawa (Ontario) to foster interdisciplinary collaboration and training amongst trainees, healthcare professionals (HCPs), and researchers. Methods: The research team conducted an implementation and outcome evaluation of the IPSORGL. Data were collected using sequential mixed methods, including surveys and interviews. Results: Eight trainees, six HCPs, and five researchers completed the survey. Six trainees and four HCPs participated in an interview. Benefits of the IPSORGL included establishing interdisciplinary connections and collaborations and obtaining unique training in a supportive environment. Challenges included members' differing preferences for meeting formats and content, and difficulties prioritizing the IPSORGL over other academic or clinical demands. Conclusions: The IPSORGL fosters essential interdisciplinary training and collaboration, which bolsters psychosocial oncology research and practice. The sustainability of such initiatives, however, requires formal institutional support.
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 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 | 0.022 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".