Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Waiting is an inevitable reality for cancer patients and their families. To date, a paucity of research has explored the meaning given to the emotional experience of waiting by spouses who provide care for cancer patients. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this discussion article is to introduce readers to the concept of liminality as a mechanism to enhance understanding of the experience of waiting. Liminality may be thought of as the space betwixt and between. METHODS: The findings from a mixed-methods exploratory study that explored the experience of caregiving among spouses of hematopoietic stem cell transplant recipients are used to illustrate the experience of waiting. RESULTS: Waiting is discussed from the perspective of disembodied (clock/calendar time) and embodied (how waiting is lived) time. Liminality is introduced as a transitional and transformational phase where individuals create meaning out of the experience of waiting. CONCLUSION: Although waiting may be a universal experience, our understanding of the experience within the context of cancer remains a poorly understood phenomenon. Lost in disembodied time are the myriad and complex nuances of the individual experience. Conceptualizing waiting as embodied and liminal may offer an alternative perspective that may enhance our understanding of the experience particularly as it applies to caregivers of cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: By enhancing our understanding of the experience of spousal caregiving, in particular waiting, effective interventions may be developed to better support spousal caregivers across the cancer care continuum to reduce psychosocial distress.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".