Camper Learning and Friendship at Pediatric Oncology Camps in North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with cancer and their families often attend specialized camps (therapeutic recreation) through their cancer treatment journey, yet little is known about the effects of these camps. A qualitative cohort study was used to assess learning and friendship development by campers attending one of four pediatric oncology summer camps during 2010 in North America. Standardized perceived change questionnaires developed by the American Camp Association were administered following camp attendance. Five-hundred and eighteen campers were enrolled: 120 (age 6-9 years) and 398 (age 10 and older). The largest positive response from the younger campers was observed for the question, "At camp did you learn to look forward to trying new activities?" For the older campers' survey, the items "Becoming better at enjoying being with my friends," "Becoming better at helping my friends have a good time when they are with me," and "Becoming better at getting to know more things about my friends" were perceived to increase the most for the majority of campers compared to other questions. Items for which older campers most often perceived little change were "Becoming better at choosing people who would be good friends to be with" and "Becoming better at understanding friends' emotions." Camp helps children learn new activities as well as enjoy good times with friends. Dealing with one's own mistakes and understanding others' emotions are areas for improvement. Ultimately it is hoped that these skills gained at camp will help build coping and resiliency for children/siblings affected by pediatric cancers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".