Motivation for giving birth after breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer at a young age threatens the natural developmental tasks that characterize this phase in life including parenthood. The dilemma of whether to give birth arises due to the potential medical, psychological and social implications of pregnancy, birth and child rearing after breast cancer. The purpose of this study was to investigate the positive and negative motivations toward childbirth of breast cancer survivors and their husbands. METHOD: Thirty breast cancer survivors and 13 husbands were compared to 29 healthy women and 15 husbands. The study included qualitative questions and quantitative measures including: a demographic and medical questionnaire, the Parenthood Motivation Questionnaire--Revised, the ENRICH Marital Satisfaction Scale, the Brief Symptom Inventory, the Impact of Events Scale, and the Mental Adjustment to Cancer Questionnaire. RESULTS: The experience of having breast cancer did not hinder overall positive motivations toward childbirth, nor did it increase overall negative motivations toward childbirth, among women and their husbands. However, there were several differences between the groups, which may reflect the illness experience. For example, breast cancer survivors and their husbands reported more negative motivations toward childbirth due to health concerns than did healthy women and their husbands.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".