MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2123039481 · doi:10.1123/jsep.29.4.419

Psychosocial Experiences of Breast Cancer Survivors Involved in a Dragon Boat Program: Exploring Links to Positive Psychological Growth

2007· article· en· W2123039481 on OpenAlexaff
Catherine M. Sabiston, Meghan H. McDonough, Peter R.E. Crocker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sport and Exercise Psychology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialPosttraumatic growthSurvivorship curveBreast cancerPsychological interventionPsychologyAthletesCancer survivorPersonal developmentGrounded theorySocial supportPsychotherapistQualitative researchCancerMedicinePhysical therapyPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored psychosocial experiences of breast cancer survivors involved in dragon boat programs. Twenty women (M(age) = 58.69, SD = 6.85) were interviewed for 45-60 min about their experiences as members of survivor dragon boat teams. Interviews were analyzed using constructivist grounded theory methods. The dragon boat program facilitated social support from women with common challenges and a shared understanding of survivorship. It also provided opportunities to (re)gain a sense of personal control, develop new identities as athletes, and overcome physical challenges. Together these elements contributed to positive psychological growth and linked to the literature on posttraumatic growth. Future physical activity interventions targeting breast cancer survivors may benefit from developing strategies that share key characteristics of dragon boating.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.002
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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.335 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations183
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sport and Exercise PsychologySame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207