Les bénéfices associés à l'expérience du cancer pédiatrique. Le point de vue d'enfants, d'adultes guéris et de parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Résumé Les personnes qui ont dû faire face au cancer pédiatrique perçoivent-elles en avoir retiré des bénéfices ? Nous avons examiné cette question en nous inspirant des travaux sur les répercussions positives de la maladie et de la classification des vertus et forces de caractère. Des enfants et des adultes guéris du cancer pédiatrique, de même que des parents, ont été interrogés sur leurs perceptions d’éventuels bénéfices associés à l’expérience du cancer pédiatrique. Leurs propos ont fait l’objet d’une analyse de contenu. Les participants ont évoqué dix bénéfices distincts, dans lesquels figurent cinq vertus. Pour la majorité des bénéfices, leur évocation varie selon le statut du participant, vraisemblablement en relation avec le développement cognitif, l’expérience intime de la maladie et le recul du temps.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".