Listen to Lung Cancer Patients’ Emotions With Photographs Taken by Them: A Mixed‐Method Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim This study was conducted to examine the emotional experiences of lung cancer patients. Methods This study, carried out with an intervention design, is a mixed‐method study in two parts. The qualitative part of the mixed method was enriched with photovoice methodology. The study used a criterion sampling technique, and 17 participants were interviewed. Some scales collected quantitative data from the survey, and qualitative data were collected through “semistructured interviews” and “photographs.” Results The themes in the first part are “meeting with cancer and a new life.” The second part determines the “range of emotions, the world through my window, and perspective.” The study revealed in striking detail that lung cancer patients experience many different emotions simultaneously. There was no significant difference in the scale mean scores of the participants. Conclusion Phototherapy is essential for revealing lung cancer patients’ emotions and concentrating on positive emotions. Cancer nurses can also add phototherapy as a simple, feasible, and accessible method of caring for lung cancer patients. Thus, lung cancer patients can participate in life through the photographs they take.
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".