MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401937065 · doi:10.1007/s13187-024-02495-w

Enhancing Job Satisfaction for Oncology Staff: Research Versus Inquisitive Conversations

2024· article· en· W4401937065 on OpenAlexaff
Rajiv Samant

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer FoundationOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineJob satisfactionMedical educationNursingPsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The burden of cancer is increasing, and this is putting incredible strain on the healthcare system, specifically on frontline oncology health care providers. This is well documented in the published literature, and the situation has been exacerbated following the COVID-19 pandemic. There is ample evidence about the concerns of healthcare staff as to what changes are needed to improve their work lives and make them more efficient and effective at their jobs. There can always be more research done in this area, but, more importantly, there is an urgent need to start taking concrete steps and appropriate action to improve the situation so cancer patients can get the best available care possible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.828
Threshold uncertainty score0.984

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.189
GPT teacher head0.636
Teacher spread0.448 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cancer EducationSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207