The perspectives and responses of children on the physical and social environments of a camp for children with cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 1,285 Canadian children (aged 0-19 years) are diagnosed with cancer annually (National Cancer Institute of Canada, 2006). There has been little investigation about children's views on non-traditional places of care provision. An exploratory, retrospective, qualitative design was used to elicit children's perspectives on and responses to a specialized summer camp and their suggestions for change. Gesler's (1991, 1992) notion of therapeutic landscape (TL) was used to conceptualize the physical and social environments of the camp. Children with cancer who were 6-16 years of age, spoke English or French, and lived in Ontario were eligible to participate in the study. Children who had severe neurological and/or sensory impairments, were receiving palliative care, or had participated in counselor-in-training or adolescent programs were excluded. Data were collected during individual, semi-structured interviews using photograph elicitation techniques with 35 children within 7 days following a for 2-week session at camp. The data were analyzed based on a coding scheme consistent with the TL framework. In summary, children perceived a network of adults and other campers watching over them. In various contexts, they accommodated to or resisted this surveillance. These findings suggest ways to enhance the delivery of health care to children in non-traditional places of care. The overarching theme that reflected children's general perspectives on camp was Watching Over Me. This theme included two sub themes: (a) Feeling Cared For and (b) Feeling Cared About. Data categorized in the first sub theme focused on regimens of care and included children's descriptions of being kept safe and receiving treatment. Data categorized in the second sub theme focused on children's accounts of actions that compensated for regimented care and included supportive care and playful care. Children's responses to feeling watched over were categorized as accommodative and resistant behaviours. Children's suggestions for change focused on providing more choices, space, and supportive places.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".