[A holistic approach and typology for the health promotion of women with breast cancer].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: The aim of this research is to better understand how women with breast cancer protect themselves against their disease in a holistic approach taking into account cognitive, subjective, biologic and social factors. This approach leads to the development of a typology of feminine protection, typology today absent of the French health system. THEORY: The protection concept refers to the salutogenesis theory. It brings together factors which help explain the way women think while going through their cancer and how they try to maintain themselves in good health in such an extreme situation. METHODOLOGY: The research is based on a mix method. This article discusses the results of the quantitative data analysis with some insights from the qualitative data. Our findings identify three distinctive types of women with regard to the types of protection they put in place (cluster analysis). RESULTS: The typology demonstrates three types of protection: (1) an ineffective protection characterised by weak SOC and stress, an internal control over the cause of cancer, a medium self-efficacy and the recourse to the protection's instinct; (2) a mixed protection marked by a weak SOC and a strong stress, an internal control over the cause of cancer, a low self-efficacy and a strong difficulty to confront authority; and (3) an effective protection expressed by a strong SOC and a weak stress, an internal control over the course of cancer, a high self-efficacy and the capacity to act in face of danger. In short, in our sample, one woman in two encounter difficulties to protect herself against breast cancer and one woman in four does not manage to do it. CONCLUSION: The typology offers a clinical framework to help women to maintain their health in face of cancer, allowing health professionals to identify those who have difficulties to protect themselves efficiently.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".