“A Tribe Apart”: Sexuality and Cancer in Adolescence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study employed hermeneutic phenomenology and narrative inquiry to examine the topic of sexuality and adolescents with cancer from the perspectives of survivors who had experienced cancer as adolescents. This investigation examined the potentially sensitive, disquieting, and often taboo issue of sexuality in the interest of optimizing wellness in young people, and, ultimately, in the health of adults. Understanding the adolescent body as a sensitive, sexual, and developing self can enrich our understanding of adolescent cancer and promote best health care and practices, examining ways that we might mitigate the long-term effects of arrested or delayed development of sexual identity. In this article, we discuss phase 1 of the study, which used hermeneutics as the method of inquiry. Findings included a general experience of adolescents having a sense of "losing themselves" while at the same time finding themselves in a new light. Other findings include the connection between sexuality, self, and identity; the unique "tribe" of adolescents with cancer; the necessity for sexuality to take a backseat to cancer; the changing mirror images from self and others; sexuality and fertility; and, ultimately, that sexuality is a relational experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".