Men’s Perspectives on Individual and Family Coping with their Wives’ Breast Cancer and Chemotherapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Little research has examined the impact of cancer and chemotherapy treatment for breast cancer from men's perspectives as partners, fathers, and caregivers. This research, part of a larger study describing women's, partners', and children's perspectives, aims to describe men's perspectives on their experiences and how their wives' breast cancer and chemotherapy impacted them and their families, to describe what facilitated and hindered their coping, and to suggest interventions to assist men and their families to manage the experience with less stress. This participatory action study used qualitative naturalistic inquiry methods. Semistructured interviews were conducted with 11 male partners. Two major themes were identified: focusing on a wife's illness and care, and focusing on the family to keep life going. Nine sub-themes cut across the major themes: being there, relying on health care professionals, being informed and contributing to decision making, trying to keep patterns normal and family life going, helping out and relying on others, being positive, putting self on hold, adapting work life, and managing finances.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 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 it