MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3087348772 · doi:10.1177/0030222820959943

A Portrait of Self-Reported Health and Distress in Parents Whose Child Died of Cancer

2020· article· en· W3087348772 on OpenAlexafffund
Émilie Dumont, Claude Julie Bourque, Michel Duval, Antoine Payot, Serge Sultan

Bibliographic record

VenueOMEGA - Journal of Death and Dying · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
FundersCHU Sainte-Justine Foundation
KeywordsGriefDistressQuality of life (healthcare)Psychological distressMedicinePopulationClinical psychologyPsychiatryRetrospective cohort studyMental healthPsychologyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grieving a child following cancer is a substantially difficult task. The objectives of this research were: 1) to describe current quality of life (QoL), psychological distress and symptoms of grief of bereaved parents, and 2) to explore the role of possible contributors of QoL and psychological distress. Forty-six parents (32 mothers) of children who died of cancer were surveyed on their QoL, distress, and complicated grief. Data were analyzed using multiple linear regression. Parents had a high frequency of grieving symptoms (58%). Mothers reported more retrospective grief symptoms than fathers when describing the year after child death. Current lower mental well-being was associated with experiencing higher retrospective grief symptoms, a shorter period since child death, and being a father. Hence, parents experienced disturbances even long after child death. Mothers and fathers may present specificities that should be considered when developing supportive activities for this vulnerable population.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.315 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOMEGA - Journal of Death and DyingSame topicGrief, Bereavement, and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207