Experience of childhood cancer: A narrative inquiry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To more fully understand the possible impact of childhood cancer on a young person's life through their own story. DESIGN AND METHODS: Using Connelly and Clandinin's narrative inquiry method, a participant named Noelle was engaged in a series of narrative interviews and a creative self-expression activity about her cancer experience when she was 12. Her story was examined through the three-dimensional space of experience (person, place, and time), and analyzed using Erikson's Psychosocial Stages of Development framework theoretical lens. RESULTS: Two significant narrative patterns emerged: identity and relationships. Although the physical effects of the cancer were successfully treated, the impact of this disease impacted Noelle's own psychosocial development as she was trying to evolve her relationships with peers and family, while grappling with her new identity as a cancer patient. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Healthcare professionals need to intentionally increase their sensitivity to adolescent patients' lived experience of cancer. More specifically, there is a need for further education of healthcare professionals on the psychosocial impact of cancer in both the immediate and long-term trajectory of the cancer disease process.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".