Awaiting Diagnosis of Breast Cancer: Strategies of Enduring for Preserving Self
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: To explicate the emotional experiences of women undergoing breast cancer diagnosis who are waiting for the results of breast biopsy. RESEARCH APPROACH: Glaserian Grounded Theory. SETTING: Urban area in western Canada. PARTICIPANTS: 37 women aged 32-76 years. The breast cancer diagnosis was positive for 11 women, negative for 24 women, and two results were unclear. METHODOLOGIC APPROACH: Unstructured, recorded telephone interviews. FINDINGS: Undergoing breast cancer diagnosis is a profoundly distressing experience dictated by diagnostic processes and procedures. Women rapidly transitioned from wellness to frightening phases of facing cancer to continuing terror during the testing phase. While waiting to hear results, women controlled their emotions, which enabled them to get through the experience and highlighted the protective function of enduring and its necessity for survival. The basic social psychological process, preserving self, is the outcome of enduring. CONCLUSIONS: A mid-range theory, Awaiting Diagnosis: Enduring for Preserving Self, was developed. This theory explicates the emotional responses of women who were undergoing diagnosis for breast cancer and provides a theoretical behavioral basis for responding to cues and signals of suffering. INTERPRETATION: The Praxis Theory of Suffering enables nurses to recognize and respond according to the behaviors of suffering, and to endure with healthy, adaptive, and normalizing behaviors that enable preserving self.
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".