Living in It, Living With It, and Moving on: Dimensions of Meaning During Chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE: To explore the meanings assigned to the experience of receiving chemotherapy. DESIGN: Descriptive exploratory. SETTING: An oncology outpatient clinic in a university hospital in Montreal, Quebec, Canada. SAMPLE: Ten women with breast cancer who experienced chemotherapy for the first time. METHODS: Semistructured interview using a grounded theory approach. FINDINGS: Women described three dimensions of their experience with breast cancer and chemotherapy: "living in it," "living with it," and "moving on." Existential and situational meanings were an integral part of their experience. The existential meaning seemed to be present in varying degrees of intensity throughout the treatment, whereas the situational meanings were predominant at the beginning of the treatment phase and became less important as the treatment progressed. CONCLUSIONS: The intrapersonal and interpersonal dimensions of the chemotherapy experience as well as the capacity to move on evolve within a context of both situational and existential meanings. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE: The study results suggest the potential value of exploring each woman's inner world of meanings in relation to her sense of self, relationships with others, resources, and coping strategies during treatment for breast cancer. Because existential and situational meanings are an integral part of women's experience, the nurse's role is to create an environment that permits and facilitates dialogue about these dimensions of meaning.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".