MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109658337 · doi:10.1177/1359105311429202

Passion in breast cancer survivors: Examining links to emotional well-being

2012· article· en· W2109658337 on OpenAlexaff
Shaunna Burke, Catherine M. Sabiston, Robert J. Vallerand

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOptimism, Hope, and Well-being
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPassionWorryBreast cancerAffect (linguistics)PsychologyClinical psychologyWell-beingMedicineCancerInternal medicineSocial psychologyPsychiatryPsychotherapistAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study (1) identified the activities that breast cancer survivors report as passionate; (2) examined whether levels of passion differed based on the types of passionate activities reported and; (3) examined the association between harmonious and obsessive passion and emotional well-being. Early post-treatment breast cancer survivors (N = 177) reported passionate physical activities as most prevalent, and reported higher harmonious passion scores compared to women reporting relaxing and social leisure activities. Harmonious passion was associated with higher positive affect and lower cancer worry. Obsessive passion was linked to higher negative affect, cancer worry, and posttraumatic growth. Passion is important for enhanced well-being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health PsychologySame topicOptimism, Hope, and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207