The potential role of benefit and burden finding in school engagement of young leukaemia survivors: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer may radically change the daily lives of young survivors, particularly in school. Depending on the sense they derive from the experience of illness, survivors may go through profound transformations in the way they approach life. METHODS: This exploratory study reports on school engagement of cancer survivors by examining their perceptions of benefits and burdens in relation to their illness. Forty-nine young Quebecers, previously diagnosed and treated for leukaemia, completed a questionnaire measuring their school engagement and participated in an interview focusing on the impact of cancer on their lives. Perceptions with regard to the presence and types of benefits and burdens were described and examined in light of participants' characteristics. An analysis of variance explored whether the presence/absence of benefits and burdens were associated with participants' scores regarding school engagement. RESULTS: Most participants mentioned benefits from having had cancer, and in particular benefits at an interpersonal level. Half of the participants mentioned burdens, mainly of a physical and psychological nature. Significant correlations indicated that (i) the older the survivors were, the more likely they were to report benefits in terms of qualities and strengths of character; (ii) the more time had elapsed since their diagnosis, the more survivors were likely to report psychological types of burdens; and (iii) children from single-parent families reported more frequently having appreciated social or recreational activities compared with children from two-parent families. One main effect indicated that school engagement was greater for survivors who perceived the presence of benefits. An interaction effect revealed that the perception of both benefits and burdens predicts the highest scores of school engagement. CONCLUSIONS: While the results reveal the promising potential that an optimistic yet realistic disposition has in regard to school engagement, more research is necessary to further our understanding of such a disposition.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".