MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1519095826 · doi:10.1300/j077v26n02_07

Timing Is Everything

2008· article· en· W1519095826 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny Puterman, Susan Cadell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosocial Oncology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier UniversityVancouver Coastal Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)PsychologyPopulationDevelopmental psychologyQualitative researchSpiritualityDaughterPerceptionMeaning-makingClinical psychologyMedicinePsychotherapistAlternative medicineSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.301
Threshold uncertainty score0.973

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosocial OncologySame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207