Coping Among Canadian Youth Living With Anxiety: A Phenomenological Photovoice Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this phenomenological photovoice study was to explore the lived experience of coping among 58 Canadian youth diagnosed with an anxiety disorder. A youth advisory committee was actively engaged throughout the project. Two phases of interviews were conducted more than a period of 4 years (2012–2016), supplemented by photovoice in the second interview. Data analysis was informed by van Manen’s hermeneutic phenomenology approach and his “Lifeworld Existentials” of embodiment, spatiality, relationality, and temporality served as a framework for organizing the data. Coping with anxiety was experienced as difficult: Anxiety was challenging to control and youth reported looking for something they could do to give them a break from their anxious thoughts and feelings. Youth reluctantly accepted their condition, and some adopted a new perspective of their experience. Coping strategies reported by youth fall along the lived experience domains of embodiment (body), spatiality (space), relationality (relations), temporality (time) and include expressing feelings and emotions, naming anxiety, bringing their attention to the present moment, distraction, going to a familiar space to calm down, going outdoors, reaching out to someone who could “be there” for them, and being with a pet. This study contributes to the emerging lived experience research in anxiety.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".