Hope and Advanced Breast Cancer: Engaging with the Parish Nursing Community to Explore Hope in Women with Advanced Breast Cancer in Nigeria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women with advanced breast cancer living in Nigeria face many obstacles and are very reliant on the support of faith communities, including parish nurses, who have a strong presence in Nigeria. Research with people with advanced cancer has shown the importance of hope as a source of strength and an important spiritual concept in their lives. Parish nursing focuses on the promotion of health within the context of the values, beliefs, and practices of the faith community. What distinguishes parish nursing care is the intentional integration of the body, mind, and spirit to create wholeness, health, and a sense of well-being even when the patient’s illness is not curable. This specialty nursing practice holds that all persons are sacred and must be treated with respect and dignity. In line with these beliefs, the parish nurse serves her community with compassion, mercy, presence, and justice. Community-based research is needed to explore what hope means for women in Nigeria with advanced breast cancer, in order to build essential and innovative nursing knowledge and provide opportunities to identify meaningful interventions and ways the faith community can support these women, their families, and their communities.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".