Navigating the Social Context of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Reflections on a Project Linking Research to Drama
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades there has been a dramatic shift in attitudes towards cancer, particularly breast cancer. The former stigma associated with the disease, while not entirely eradicated, is no longer primary. Breast cancer’s new upbeat image focuses on prevention, early detection and survivorship, not on death. In this article we explore the implications of this societal shift for women with metastatic breast cancer. To do this, we draw on several sources of information: (1) a focus group study we conducted with women with metastatic breast cancer; (2) excerpts from a theatre script about metastatic disease, based in large part on our focus group research; and (3) interviews with participants in the development of the theatre production, especially women with metastatic disease. We conclude that the difficult realities facing seriously ill individuals are most often ignored or avoided by those who surround them. Where the grim challenges of metastatic cancer are acknowledged, patients are often pressured to take up narratives that cast them outside the discourse of everyday life, as either passive victims or courageous heroes.
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 | 0.018 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.030 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| 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".