Bibliographic record
Abstract
Children with cancer experience short- and long-term symptoms. The symptoms can escalate child and family suffering and impact on their quality of life. Children's perspectives of their cancer symptoms have been increasingly investigated; however, there is still much more to be learned from children with cancer. Accordingly, a qualitative study that sought to arrive at an interpretive description of children's and adolescent's perspectives about their cancer symptoms was conducted, with a focus on exploring what children and adolescents with cancer think and feel about their cancer symptoms. Open-ended individual interviews were conducted with 13 children and adolescents with cancer. The patients ranged in age between 9 and 17 years. Data were analyzed by the constant comparative method of data analysis. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) It is all together, (2) Shared and unique ways of feeling, (3) I am feeling this way because..., (4) Feelings about my feelings, and (5) It is hard to explain. The findings reinforce that children have a lot to tell us about how cancer makes them feel but may have difficulty communicating how they feel to nurses and other healthcare providers.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".