“Look at You Having Fun With Your Markers in Here!”: Child Life Specialists’ Countering of Infantilizating Narratives in Adult Oncology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Child life specialists are clinically trained and educated healthcare professionals who work in both healthcare environments and the community to address the needs of ill children and their families. However, child life specialists have previously reported potential for their role, responsibilities, and scope of practice to be misunderstood by their clinical colleagues. Using a narrative methodology, this paper presents the composite narrative of Diane, whose story encompasses the stories of the four child life specialists working in adult oncology environments in Ontario, Canada. Diane's narrative is a counter-story, which counters common assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes about child life specialists. Through spending significant time narrating the multitude of tasks that are encompassed within her scope of care, Diane reaffirms her identity as a valuable member of an interprofessional adult oncology team and counters infantilizing assumptions that she is merely a babysitter or child entertainer. Her story highlights how, while the introduction of child life specialists to adult healthcare environments is new, the work they do is of great benefit to families and their children. The lack of understanding from clinical colleagues of the role of child life specialists, however, hinders not only the development of relationships between colleagues, but also the care for these families.
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 | 0.017 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".