The Experience of American and Canadian Cancer Patients in Deciding to Seek Alternative Care in Mexican Cancer Clinics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Each year, despite warnings from the American Cancer Association, many US and Canadian citizens travel to Tijuana, Mexico, for cancer care. The main criticism of these clinics is that they provide treatments that are unproven, potentially unsafe, and expensive. Despite this, about 35 clinics exist in Tijuana that provide alternative care to patients who pay cash for these services.\nObjectives. To understand the lived experience of people who have made the choice to receive cancer treatment at alternative cancer clinics in Tijuana, and gain insight into the process by which that decision occurs.\nPopulation. 5 participants were interviewed. Three adult US citizens, one Canadian, and both parents of a US pediatric patient.\nMethod. A phenomenological approach was used. Participants were interviewed at clinics while undergoing treatment. The researcher conducted a review of the clinics and treatments offered, along with history of the political, social, and economic climate in which the phenomena exists.\nConclusions. Themes identified in the decision-making process are rational, social and emotional. People choose caregivers based on trusting relationships and reasons that seem rational to them. Decisions are often values based, such as quality of life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".