Portrayal of Childhood Cancer in English Language Magazines in North America: 1970–2001
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 article is a content and discourse analysis of the portrayal of childhood cancer in English language magazines in North America. In a unique specification of published research on the media portrayal of disease, magazines were divided into three market or audience groupings called (1) science, (2) news/special interest, and (3) other (women/teen/parenting/health). The predominate frames or discoursesin these three groups were compared and differences were found amongst them and discussed in the article. Considerable evidence suggests that people with cancer are stigmatized. In the analyzed media focused on children, those with cancer are highly idealized and stereotyped. On the one hand, this can be thought of as a very positive portrayal of children in this situation. Children are described as if they possess heroic and idealized character traits, appearances, social characteristics, and personalities. Possible links between this idealized, polarized, and biased portrayal of children with cancer and their documented experiences of stigma are discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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