Children with cancer and their families believed and expected that symptom suffering was necessary to overcome cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Woodgate RL, Degner LF. Expectations and beliefs about children’s cancer symptoms: perspectives of children with cancer and their families. Oncol Nurs Forum 2003;30:479–91.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3] Q How do children with cancer and their families experience cancer symptoms? Grounded theory and illness narratives. Participants’ homes and inpatient and outpatient paediatric cancer units in western Canada. 39 children with cancer at varying stages (age 4.5–18 y, 54% girls, 95% Caucasian) and their families. All children received chemotherapy alone or in combination with surgery, radiation, or bone marrow transplant. Data were collected from 230 individual or joint interviews with mothers (117 interviews), fathers (46 interviews), siblings (48 interviews), and children (103 interviews); and 960 hours of participant observation of children and their family members. Audiotapes and field notes were transcribed, and data were analysed using constant comparison and illness narratives. Children and their families described 5 common beliefs and expectations. (1) Short term pain for long term gain emphasised how children and their families equated cancer with suffering, and the belief that suffering was … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DOncology%2Bnursing%2Bforum%26rft.stitle%253DOncol%2BNurs%2BForum%26rft.aulast%253DWoodgate%26rft.auinit1%253DR.%2BL.%26rft.volume%253D30%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D479%26rft.epage%253D491%26rft.atitle%253DExpectations%2Band%2Bbeliefs%2Babout%2Bchildren%2527s%2Bcancer%2Bsymptoms%253A%2Bperspectives%2Bof%2Bchildren%2Bwith%2Bcancer%2Band%2Btheir%2Bfamilies.%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1188%252F03.ONF.479-491%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F12719747%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1188/03.ONF.479-491&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=12719747&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febnurs%2F7%2F1%2F29.atom
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".