Constructing the Meaning of Survivor With Former Pediatric Brain Tumor Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although the term survivor is frequently used in cancer discourse, the meaning of survivor and how people identify with this term can be difficult to understand. The purpose of this qualitative study is to explore the meaning of the term survivor from the perspective of young adults who have experienced a pediatric brain tumor (PBT). A constructivist grounded theory was utilized in this study with 6 young adults who had a PBT. This study also used semistructured interviews with participants who also completed reflective journals, which were focused on the survivor concept. Data were analyzed through coding strategies and constant comparative methods. Findings present 4 major themes of process: (a) reviewing the illness experience, (b) qualifying as a survivor, (c) thinking positive, and (d) being changed. These themes are important to consider in the construction, interpretation, and understanding of how the majority of this population do not identify with the current social use of the term survivor. Clearly, there is a need for a clearer understanding of survivor and how it specifically applies to those who have had a PBT. Everyone should remain conscious and consider how a broad, generalizing term such as survivor may influence a person's attitude and advocacy toward their health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".