Mediators of psychosocial well-being for immigrant women living with breast cancer in Canada: a critical ethnography: Erratum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the publication of the article entitled “Mediators of psychosocial well-being for immigrant women living with breast cancer in Canada: a critical ethnography” (Journal of Psychosocial Oncology Research and Practice. 5(4), October-December 2023), the authors have requested the following formatting corrections: On page 4, right column, the section number 3.2.2.2. should have been removed and the text appear as follows: Participant 15 also indicated: “I do know who to prepare, always aware of this. I found to have anxiety and waiting for results. I finished treatment, how to look for things, I feel fairly prepared. There is a time and treatment on RXX and OX chemotherapy, surgery, radiation, going every single day. […] On page 5, left column, the section heading should have been inserted as follows: 3.2.2.2 Emotional and mental health supports Insights into emotional well-being provide a roadmap for health care organizations, policymakers, and support networks to create more person-centered and effective cancer care strategies. By addressing the specific needs and concerns identified, health care providers can enhance reported outcomes, boost satisfaction, and contribute to improving services. The changes have been made online: D'Souza et al.1
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 | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".