MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067506893 · doi:10.1188/14.onf.111

The Language of Cancer

2014· editorial· en· W2067506893 on OpenAlexaff
Anne Katz

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology nursing forum · 2014
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsCancerCare Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJargonPolitenessTabooMedicinePublishingLinguisticsCurseStigma (botany)LiteratureSociologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Language is important to me. I have always loved words, and as a writer (after publishing nine books I think I can describe myself as such!), language is something that I don't just use for communication, but is something that I think about and consider as I put fingers to keyboard. The language of cancer is an interesting one. For many years, talking about cancer was taboo. I recall my grandmother whispering the word instead of saying it out loud. Did she think that giving the word added decibels so that it was more than a hiss would in some way curse her? We talk about cancer openly now, in "polite" circles as well-and you rarely hear the hiss of stigma anymore. But what we say about cancer and how we describe it is fascinating to me.

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 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)0.000
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.662

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology nursing forumSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207