OLDER WOMEN WITH BREAST CANCER: NEW UNDERSTANDINGS THROUGH GROUNDED THEORY RESEARCH
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer incidence increases by decade of life, significantly affecting the lives and well-being of older women. In a critical analysis of three decades of quantitative and qualitative research literature. I found an indication that something changed over the course of time that allowed women to adjust to breast cancer and resolve emotional turmoil. However, it was not clear what was "adjusted," or what constituted the process that allowed women to restore meaning within illness. In this paper I discuss the benefits of using a grounded theory approach in the study of older women with breast cancer. A brief overview of the study is given for context. The main focus of this paper is on the contributions of grounded theory research to new understandings of the cancer experience for older women. Contrary to findings in the quantitative literature, this study raised awareness of several issues: the myth of burden in researching older women, willingness to participate in decision making around treatment, ageism, and positive collusion in communication with health professionals.
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 | 0.030 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".