Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much research has been directed at childhood cancer survivors and their families to learn how to best provide care. However, little is known about parents' experiences of transitioning to a time when their child has completed treatment for cancer when living at a distance to the tertiary cancer center. The purpose of this study was to talk to such parents about their experiences. Five Canadian parents of children who had completed treatment for cancer in the past 3 months to 5 years took part in qualitative opened-ended interviews using a phenomenological hermeneutic approach. Data analysis revealed the essence of the parents' lived experience as a journey within a journey; 4 themes characterized the essence. Parents living a 2.5- to 5-hour drive from the cancer center expressed a willingness to travel wherever necessary in order to receive specialized care for their child. Parents emphasized the importance of having a local health care provider in whom they trusted. Assessing families' needs, support systems, and readiness to return home are important nursing roles throughout the cancer trajectory.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".