Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parental cancer during young adulthood is unexpected and potentially disruptive to the developmental goals of this period. This study explores how young adult women experience a parent's cancer diagnosis and treatment. The sample included five participants, aged 20 to 32, who had a parent receiving cancer treatment. The interactive interview format, derived from an autoethnographic approach, allowed the first author (J. P.) to include her own experiences of her mother's cancer in the data. Analysis of the transcribed interviews revealed a number of themes including time, hope and spirituality, the meaning of cancer, relationships, family and coping. Time, an overriding theme in the interviews, is the focus of this article. Sub-themes under time include (1) unexpected timing, (2) uncertainty/waiting, (3) being present, (4) concerns for future, (5) acceleration of time, (6) illness progression and (7) holidays. This research revealed that a daughter's perception of time was altered by her parent's illness, and it also highlighted the significance of parental illness during young adulthood. Practitioners working with this population should be aware of issues related to timing so that daughters can be supported in coping with their parents' illnesses, and in achieving the developmental goals of this transitional phase of the life course.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".