Cancer survivorship, mor(t)ality and lifestyle discourses on cancer prevention
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
Despite ongoing controversies regarding the impact of lifestyle factors such as body weight, diet and exercise on health, this framework has become increasingly prominent in understandings of cancer aetiology. To date, little consideration has been given to the impacts of such discourses on people with a history of cancer. Drawing on an ethnographic study of cancer survivors, I explore the constitutive dimensions of these discourses and the ways that they shape the subjectivities of women and men with a history of the disease. Overall, the study participants evidenced a complex and ambivalent engagement with such discourses. While they were generally unwilling to accept that their lifestyle had an impact on the development of their cancer, to varying degrees they endorsed the idea that weight, diet and exercise affected cancer progression. However, this acceptance was generally borne of an active desire to gain control over the uncertainty of living with the disease and was mediated by other aspects of the experience of surviving cancer.
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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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