MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997900502 · doi:10.1177/1359105305057318

Considering ‘Meaning’ in the Context of Breast Cancer

2005· review· en· W1997900502 on OpenAlex
Kate Collie, Bonita C. Long

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Breast cancerContext (archaeology)Situational ethicsSocial psychologyPsychologyCancerMedicinePsychotherapistInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we show that a psychological view of global and situational meanings is inadequate for understanding meaning making in the context of breast cancer. We outline research that has illuminated breast cancer meanings that differ from standard illness meanings and we highlight impediments to meaning making for women with breast cancer. We conclude that it is less helpful to promote a particular kind of illness meaning for women with breast cancer than to: (a) create conditions that women with breast cancer have said are conducive to meaning making; (b) accept and acknowledge meanings that women with breast cancer themselves find valuable; and (c) actively work to change dominant discourses that constrain meaning making for women with breast 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.970
Threshold uncertainty score0.533

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.548
Teacher spread0.367 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it