Bereaved Parents’ and Siblings’ Reports of Legacies Created by Children With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study explored bereaved parents' and siblings' reports of legacies created by children with advanced cancer. Participants included 40 families of children who died from cancer, with 36 mothers, 27 fathers, and 40 siblings (ages 8-18 years). Individual interviews were completed at home approximately 10.68 months (SD = 3.48) after the child's death. Content analysis of interviews indicated that many children living with cancer did specific things to be remembered, such as making crafts for others, willing away belongings, writing letters to loved ones, and giving special gifts. Some children, particularly those who were very ill or died unexpectedly, did not intentionally do or say anything to be remembered. Legacies included bereaved individuals remembering children's qualities, concern for family, and beliefs about afterlife. Having advanced cancer appeared to motivate children to influence others' lives and prepare for their own deaths. Children's advice about how to live life inspired bereaved family members. Findings contribute to the current knowledge of legacy-making in children and offer implications for practice and future research.
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".