To tell or not to tell: patterns of disclosure among men with prostate 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
This paper draws on the results of a longitudinal, qualitative study of men with prostate cancer (treated with prostatectomy) and their spouses. Interviews were conducted separately and simultaneously with men and their spouses, at three points in time (pre-surgery, 8-10 weeks post-surgery and 11-13 months post-surgery). The primary focus in the paper is on men's responses to questions about their decisions to share information (or not) with others about their diagnosis and ongoing medical situation. Most men with prostate cancer avoided disclosure about their illness where possible, and placed great importance on sustaining a normal life. Factors related to limiting disclosure included men's low perceived need for support, fear of stigmatization, the need to minimize the threat of illness to aid coping, practical necessities in the workplace, and the desire to avoid burdening others. This study contributes to an understanding of disclosure issues related to prostate cancer, and raises issues about how best to be helpful to men, given their tendency to minimize the impact of illness, and the need for support.
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) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.005 | 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