Cancer patients, their caregivers and coping with loneliness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four hundred and twenty-six participants volunteered to participate in this study. A total of 159 men and 281 women comprised the sample. The sample was composed of 99 cancer stricken patients, 97 caregivers, 124 participants from the general population, and 126 people who were related to them in a similar manner that caregivers were related to patients (i.e. spouse, intimate partner, child, family member, etc.). Utilizing the Loneliness Questionnaire, the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MPSS), and the Sense of Coherence (SOC) questionnaires, it was found that significant differences among the four groups were found on Reflection and Acceptance, Self-development and Understanding, Social Support Network, Distancing and Denial, and on the Increased Activity subscales. Significant differences were not found on the Religion and Faith subscale. The findings are interpreted in light of the analyses of the other two measures which address the social support that patients and caregivers received and their SOC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".