Understanding the Impact on Healthcare Professionals of Viewing Digital Stories of Adults with Cancer: A Hermeneutic Study
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
The purpose of this study was to understand the effects on oncology healthcare providers (HCPs), both personally and professionally, of watching digital stories made by adults with cancer (past and present), and what HCPs envisioned for the uses of digital stories. Seven healthcare professionals from various disciplines volunteered for this study. This research took place in a large urban center in Western Canada and was done in the tradition of philosophical hermeneutics. A 90-minute focus group was used for data collection, where participants watched eight digital stories (batched in four groups of two stories) that had been created by individuals with cancer (past or present). Data was analyzed using an interpretive qualitative methodology. Findings revealed that watching digital stories made by adults with cancer was emotionally compelling, provided context, incited deep introspection, and may offer a protective effect with respect to HCP burnout.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it