Coping style and typology of perceived social support of male partners of women with breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article reports on one component of an exploratory qualitative study, namely male partners' coping style of self-reliance, and the perceived social support that these partners relied upon to cope with their wife's breast cancer. Data were drawn from a larger study designed to explore male partners' perceived needs and the services they preferred to address these needs following their wife's diagnosis of breast cancer. The 27 male partners participating in this study were significantly affected by their wife's breast cancer. To cope, they relied on a coping style of self-reliance, drawing upon their own internal resources (self reliance) augmented by available informal social support to support themselves, their wife, and their family, and to manage the disease-, individual-, couple- and family-related stressors in their lives. Attention needs to be given to the self-support and social support needs of spouses to address unmet needs and facilitate coping. As the main providers of support for their wives, partners are in the unique position of needing support as well as providing it.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".