Blood donation within the family: the transmission of values and practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article presents the results of our study, which aimed to examine the role of family in the transmission of practices and values associated with blood donation. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Fifty-two qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted in the province of Quebec, Canada. They were categorized into three distinct dyads (one parent and one child interviewed per dyad): 1) parent donor/child donor (10 dyads); 2) parent nondonor/child donor (8 dyads); and 3) parent donor/child nondonor (8 dyads). RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Our results point to two kinds of families: in the first type, blood donation has been an integral "part of life" for generations and we can observe a process of transmission--a set of practices that encompasses imitation or modeling. In the second type of family, the act of donating blood was perceived and defined as an individual one, in the sense of personal, and sometimes even as a private gesture: a majority of young donors started giving at their colleges' blood drives without discussing it with their families.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".