Family dynamics and support network of family caregivers of people with progressive cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze family dynamics, the support network of family caregivers of individuals with progressive cancer, and their needs for comprehensive care. METHOD: Qualitative, descriptive study developed based on the Calgary Family Assessment Model framework. It was conducted from September 2022 to April 2023, through participant observation at a public health institution in São Paulo and interviews with six family caregivers. The analysis was performed using Genogram and Ecomap, following the Calgary Model, with the support of software for data organization. RESULTS: The data were categorized into structural, developmental, and functional family assessments. They revealed the strengthening of family relationships with strong bonds, an increased level of burden on the caregiver as cancer progressed, neglect of self-care, and financial difficulties. Due to the burden, caregivers struggled to outline the composition of their support network, but the employed model enabled the identification of its elements, with faith being mentioned by all. CONCLUSION: The diagnosis and progression of cancer led to changes in family structure, development, and functionality which need to be individually assessed to improve care planning. This involves mobilizing elements and services according to the reality of 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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it