MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022481268 · doi:10.1093/jnci/djh346

Myth-Busters: Telling the True Story of Breast Cancer Survivorship

2004· letter· en· W2022481268 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Leslie R. Schover

Bibliographic record

VenueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2004
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerPossession (linguistics)WifeInsiderLesbianMedicineMythologyHuman sexualityPsychologyCancerGender studiesPsychoanalysisArtSociologyLiteraturePolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The conventional wisdom is that breast cancer devastates women’s lives, even when the disease is controlled by modern, multimodality treatments. We, the general public, take our stereotypes not so much from real life but from novels, movies of the week, and soap operas. Our poor heroine loses her breast (or at least gains an ugly scar that would turn off any but the most desperate man). Needless to say, her sex life falls apart. If she is single, her boyfriend leaves her. If she is married, she ends up divorced while her husband finds a younger partner who flaunts a perfect bosom in skimpy halter tops when our heroine picks up the kids for weekend visits. Of course we learn that our heroine the survivor only got breast cancer because of stress. In the last 3 years, she lost both her parents in a tragic plane crash, her teenaged son was arrested for marijuana possession, she supported her husband emotionally and financially when he was fired from his job for insider trading, and after fending off sexual advances from her boss, she was passed over for the job promotion she clearly deserved.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0160.016
Scholarly communication0.0080.014
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0060.023
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.267 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJNCI Journal of the National Cancer InstituteSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207