Examining engagement in a self‐in‐relationship observation exercise by couples coping with breast cancer: A qualitative analysis of text‐based feedback
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Young women with breast cancer (BC) and their partners generally face greater psychosocial difficulties relative to older couples, justifying the need for targeted support for this group. Toward this end, we examined how couples facing BC responded to participating in a self-in-relationship observation exercise intended to improve the relationship. Participants (N = 60) were 30 women and 30 male partners who, over the course of a week, observed and textually described/reported their "turning-towards-and-away-behaviors" deemed to contribute to relationship closeness/distance. Text-based feedback on the exercise was thematically analyzed. Findings suggest an online exercise promoting in vivo awareness of relationship interactions was feasible and acceptable to the majority of couples. Language accounts reflected acting with and through the shared "turning-towards-and-away-framework" with the intention of increasing closeness with one's partner. We discuss differences in exercise engagement and how participants reported changes in their attending, understanding, and acting in relationship, primarily for the better.
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".