Autoethnography: Reflective Journaling and Meditation to Cope With Life-Threatening Breast Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autoethnography is a qualitative research approach whereby the researcher shares personal stories that relate to the broader cultural context. Living through breast cancer showed me how reflective journaling and meditation can help one to cope with locally advanced breast cancer. The purpose of this autoethnography is to assist nurses in gaining a greater understanding of the primary cultural implications of (a) unresolved emotional issues from the past complicating current treatment and recovery for locally advanced breast cancer, and that (b) reflective journaling and meditation can provide an opportunity to "socially reconstruct" past psychological injury. In this example of autoethnography, I reconstructed the past by re-experiencing childhood wounds through meditation, accompanied by myself in the role of the nurturing mother providing comfort and support to the wounded inner child. That approach affirmed me in my current mothering role and provided imagery of the comfort that I was lacking in my childhood. Such duality empowered me toward self-acceptance and self-worth. Loss, grief, fear, and anxiety are considered universal states and emotions that interfere with quality of life. Finding meaning in suffering can heal pain and free energy for the pursuit of justice, peace, and joy.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".