Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Childhood cancer and its treatment result in many challenges that impact the entire family. For siblings of children with cancer, the challenges can be particularly stressful as they often undergo tremendous change in their lives. Although there is a sound and growing body of knowledge on how siblings experience childhood cancer, there is still much to be learned. Part of a larger qualitative study aimed at detailing childhood cancer experience and its symptom trajectory from the perspective of parents, ill children, and siblings, this study aims to describe findings specific to 30 siblings who participated in the study. Siblings took part in individual interviews, focus group interviews, and participant observation. The constant comparative method of data analysis yielded the theoretical category of "ways of being in the world," which referred to the different ways that cancer impacted on the lives of children with cancer and their families. For the siblings, cancer was experienced as a different way of being within their family and involved siblings undergoing a loss of a family way of life and a loss of self within the family. Three themes related to a different way of being in the family were identified: committing to keeping my family together, being present, and enduring sadness. The findings reinforce that more needs to be done in helping healthy siblings through childhood cancer.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it