Will My Disclosure Harm the Relationship? Factors that Impact Mother-Daughter Cancer Communication in Taiwan
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1982, cancer has been the leading cause of death in Taiwan. According to the Ministry of Health and Welfare (2020), in 2019 more than a quarter (28.6%) of deaths were caused by cancer, an increase of about 5% from 1999. Family communication can help encourage social and physical support, especially for those who face traumatic, life-changing events, such as receiving a cancer diagnosis. However, people may avoid self-disclosing information about their diseases, treatments, and emotions with their families for different reasons. Between May and July 2014, fifteen in-depth interviews were conducted to explore what factors influence breast cancer mothers’ desire to engage in cancer communication with their daughters. Six themes representing individual factors, relational factors, and cultural factors that influence self-disclosure emerged. These themes were: 1) Cancer stage when the mother was first diagnosed, 2) Mother’s dependency/Daughter’s maturity, 3) Philosophy of “face it, accept it, deal with it, and let it be”, 4) Societal expectations of women’s roles, 5) Religion, and 6) Support group engagement.
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.
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 | 0.014 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it