The Comparison of the Emotional States of the Cancer Children to their Healthy Peers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the emotional status of children with cancer between the ages of five and twelve with their healthy peers. The study groups of the research consist of children with cancer disease between the ages of five and twelve which have inpatient treatment at pediatric oncology service and healthy peers of the same age and gender. Totally 70 children, with 35 cancer who took inpatient treatment and two or more chemotherapy treatments between the dates September-November 2017, and also whose families accepted to participate in the research and 35 healthy children who live at the centre of Ankara, and were chosen with easy sampling method were included to the research. When collecting the data, “General Information Form” was used to determine the sociodemographic characteristics of the children and their families and the pictures drawn by the children were used to determine the emotional situations of the children. Pictures were evaluated according to the expert opinions using Koppitz’s “Draw a Man” evaluation test. The Chi-Square test was used to evaluate the data. The coherence between the experts was determined by the Cronbach Alpha value which was found 0.83. According to findings of the research, it was concluded that the impulsiveness, self-insecurity, anxiety, and anger-aggressiveness (p>0.05); shyness-timidity (p<0.05) of children with cancer was significantly higher than their healthy peers.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".