A multisite evaluation of summer camps for children with cancer and their siblings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summer camps for pediatric cancer patients and their families are ubiquitous. However, there is relatively little research, particularly studies including more than one camp, documenting outcomes associated with children's participation in summer camp. The current cross-sectional study used a standardized measure to examine the role of demographic, illness, and camp factors in predicting children's oncology camp-related outcomes. In total, 2,114 children at 19 camps participated. Campers were asked to complete the pediatric camp outcome measure, which assesses camp-specific self-esteem, emotional, physical, and social functioning. Campers reported high levels of emotional, physical, social, and self-esteem functioning. There were differences in functioning based on demographic and illness characteristics, including gender, whether campers/siblings were on or off active cancer treatment, age, and number of prior years attending camp. Results indicated that summer camps can be beneficial for pediatric oncology patients and their siblings, regardless of demographic factors (e.g., gender, treatment status) and camp factors (e.g., whether camp sessions included patients only, siblings only, or both). Future work could advance the oncology summer camp literature by examining other outcomes linked to summer camp attendance, using longitudinal designs, and including comparison groups.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".