Taking One for the Team
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this Part 2 of a three-part research paper, we further our interpretations from our hermeneutic study examining how having a child who has experienced cancer had an impact on the relationship between the parents. In Part 1, we identified the focus of the study and provided background to the topic. We also described the research question, method, and design before offering an interpretive analysis of couples whose relationships survived, thrived, or demised. In this article, we extend the interpretations under an overarching theme of "taking one for the team." Here, we discuss issues of changes in focus and roles, and the notions of tag teaming, protection, intimacy, and grieving. We examine the phenomenon of putting relationships on hold, then finding reclamation later. In Part 3, we offer implications of these findings for other parents in similar situations and for health care professionals working with these families.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".