Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper, based on focus group interviews with mothers whose children have had cancer, describes the advocacy work in which mothers engaged during the period of diagnosis and treatment. Among the mothers' manifold responsibilities, advocacy was one of the most compelling. It was described as if it was a taken-for-granted moral imperative. Some mothers said they felt that it was necessary because of (1) perceived errors during diagnosis or later during the process of treatment; (2) perceived understaffing; (3) advice given by other mothers or fathers; and (4) perceived lack of coordination and communication in the medical care system. Many coped with the need to advocate through educating themselves, by keeping extensive notes and journals and by talking to other parents about their experiences. The paper concludes with clinical practice implications and recommendations for policy consideration including acknowledgment of the significant role of optimal family cohesion for managing the stresses and strains of advocacy and other home health care work; appointment of parent-child advocates associated with hospitals that provide pediatric oncology care; establishment of in-service training and education for guardians and medical care teams regarding their mutual roles and responsibilities; as well as, the provision of guaranteed and paid parental leave policies for guardians whose children have a catastrophic or severe chronic medical condition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".