The rupture and repair of the couple's communal body with prostate cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intimate partners' ability to adopt a "we" outlook in relation to cancer has consistently been associated with optimal adaptation for couples. This investigation adds to the growing body of literature on dyadic coping and resiliency in couples through an in-depth examination of five well-adjusted couples' experiences with prostate cancer. Of specific interest were (1) how the experience of prostate cancer affected the couple's unique intersubjective identity, and how in turn (2) the couple's identity and relationship culture influenced their adjustment to cancer. An ethnographic mode of inquiry was adopted. Marital partners were interviewed together on two separate occasions with the intention of having them deepen their conjoint reflexive processing of their relationship. During the interviews, couples were asked to reflect upon and articulate their sense of themselves as a couple, their experience of "we-ness" and shared identity, and the interaction between the illness and we-ness. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using the grounded theory method. The grounded theory analysis yielded three main themes portraying the couples' experience of prostate cancer: (1) riding the vortex, (2) holding the communal body intact, and (3) invincibility and its underbelly. A more broad understanding to arise from this investigation was the notion of a "communal body" and that couples participated in a shared corporeality, to which each partner's identity and sense of self was intricately tied. It is concluded that the intersubjective embodiment displayed by couples in this study was instrumental to the "repair" of the communal body ruptured by prostate cancer.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".