Renegotiating hope while living with lymphoedema after cancer: a qualitative study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hope is defined as a multi-dimensional life force, a coping resource and a necessity for coping with illness. Concepts of normalcy, hope and loss are explored in this qualitative study and positioned within recent scholarship on hope in cancer survivors. The experiences of 13 participants (11 women, 2 men) in two Canadian provinces who were living with lymphoedema secondary to cancer were analysed. For these participants, hope assumed various meanings. For some, hope was seen as passive inaction, whereas hope for others was positive and action-oriented, even when faced with the uncertainty of chronic illness. Hope for the individual with lymphoedema is also juxtaposed with hope associated with cancer treatment where a desired return to normal is the object of hope and paramount to coping. However, when met with the chronic nature of lymphoedema, the hope of a return to normalcy is lost and the meaning, direction and actions of hope must be renegotiated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".