A Dyadic Affair
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Couples facing lung cancer may be at an increased risk of relationship distress in relation to unresolved blame and anger. Using a comparative design, we conducted preliminary analyses of illness attributions as reported by 100 patients and their primary support persons. Patients and support persons responded to a series of 5-point Likert-type questions to capture locus of causality and controllability as well as attribution-related cognitions and emotions. Most patients and support persons had a smoking history. Both patients and support persons ascribed the locus of causality and controllability for lung cancer as the patient. Between-group analyses revealed that patients and support persons ascribed more negative attributions toward oneself and more positive attributions toward their partner. However, within-group analysis revealed that support persons tended to ascribe more responsibility, fault, and blame toward the patient. We speculated that patients may be responding to negative signals received from their support persons that perpetuated their self-blame. The care of patients, particularly those who used tobacco, might be approached from a "shared line of attack," wherein both patients and support persons are encouraged to examine and understand their attributions to "soften" the blame and anger toward oneself or their partner.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".