Stories of Liminality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to examine liminal experiences of living with the uncertainty of life-threatening illness. Increasing numbers of people with life-threatening illness live in-between the promise of treatment and the threat of recurrence or progression of disease, and yet this experience is not well understood. DESIGN: A narrative inquiry methodology within a constructionist frame was used. METHOD: Semistructured in-depth interviews were conducted with 32 participants from three populations of interest: (a) 10 people living with cancer, (b) 13 people with chronic renal disease, and (c) 9 people living with HIV/AIDS. FINDINGS: An overarching theme of "pervasive liminality" and four narratives are identified: storying into fear(lessness), being alive but not living; knowing and not knowing, and the (in)visibility of disease. CONCLUSIONS: Over time, living with a life-threatening illness produces complex and paradoxical experiences that do not easily fit within familiar categories of experience. Findings highlight pervasive liminal experiences as in-between narratives that are neither problematic nor need to be resolved, and endure over time.
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 | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".