Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the lived experiences of the perceived long-term effects of pediatric cancer on adult survivors and whether these effects had bearing on their primary support persons. DESIGN: This work was guided by van Manen's "new" interpretive phenomenology. METHODS: Ten survivors of pediatric cancer (aged 21-28 years) and 9 of their support persons (aged 23-73 years) were recruited. Background questionnaires were administered, and interviews were conducted. Field notes were collected, and member checks were administered for data credibility. RESULTS: A total of 4 themes emerged from this work; however, only the theme discussing posttraumatic growth will be discussed. Posttraumatic growth manifested in different ways, such as motivation for career or schooling choices, doing charity work, working with cancer organizations, or mentoring children undergoing pediatric cancer treatment. CONCLUSIONS: This work may provide comfort to other individuals with pediatric cancer knowing that they are not alone in their journeys. Healthcare providers should attempt to make pediatric cancer experiences as "normal" as possible for patients and their families and observe for signs of stress in their patients. As well, it is important for the pediatric cancer literature to illustrate that young adult survivors of pediatric cancer find positive outcomes in their experiences.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".