Positive Thinking and Social Perceptions of a Male vs. Female Peer’s Cancer Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive thinking (PT; i.e., sustaining positive thoughts and suppressing negative thoughts to "fight" cancer) is often equated with direct control over one's cancer trajectory. It was determined whether PT exposure enhanced the effort, control, and responsibility attributions ascribed to a peer for his/her cancer trajectory, and whether those ascriptions varied as a function of the peer's or participant's gender. Within a hypothetical online blog, a peer described a personal experience with bone cancer. Undergraduate participants (N = 630) were randomly administered one of 12 experimental conditions that varied in terms of the peer's gender, PT exposure, and cancer outcome. MANCOVA results indicated that PT exposure enhanced the effort, control, and responsibility attributions assigned to the peer for an unsuccessful cancer outcome, regardless of the peer's or participant's gender. Moreover, the male peer was perceived as more accountable for still having cancer but the female peer received more "credit" for being cancer-free. The notion of PT may contribute to overestimating cancer patients' personal influence over their disease trajectory and social perceptions of successful or unsuccessful cancer outcomes vary as a function of the patient's gender.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".