“Family Is Who They Say They Are” <sup>a</sup> : Examining the Effects of Cancer on the Romantic Partners of Adolescents and Young Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we discuss a study we conducted to examine the effects of cancer on romantic partners (i.e., boyfriends and girlfriends, social/romantic/intimate partners) of adolescents and young adults experiencing, or who have experienced, cancer. In this hermeneutic study, we interviewed partners who were involved with an adolescent/young adult with cancer, a cancer survivor who was in a relationship during his treatment, and two healthcare professionals who have worked with these couples and witnessed many other situations of impact, effect, and repercussion. Out of this study, we suggest that partners are affected in many ways that can vary from estrangement, to termination of the relationship, to premature decisions about remaining in the relationship, to family disregard of the partner, and to disregard of the family due to influence of, or relationship with, the partner. We discuss these findings within the context of the larger picture of the psychosocial relational impact of cancer on members beyond those in the immediate and biological family.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".