The Importance of Being There: Perspectives of Social Support by Adolescents with Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents with cancer are confronted with many challenges. The extent to which they are able to deal with such challenges appears to be partly contingent on a positive strong social support system. In this article, the author describes findings specific to the sources of social support that 15 adolescents with cancer found to be most important in getting them through the cancer experience. Data were collected as part of a longitudinal qualitative interpretive study and involved individual interviews, focus group interviews, and participant observation as the main sources of data. The relationships that adolescents maintained with their nuclear families, health care team members, and special friends were the 3 main supportive relationships in the adolescents'lives. The act of others "being there" was seen by the adolescents as the key element of a supportive relationship and involved 6 main behaviors. Although the 3 key supportive relationships were essential in helping adolescents get through cancer, these relationships were at times a source of stress for adolescents.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".