MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067689688 · doi:10.1558/lhs.v3i1.3

Breast Cancer Narratives as Public Rhetoric

2008· article· en· W2067689688 on OpenAlex

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

VenueLinguistics and the Human Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicRhetoric and Communication Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNarrativeIgnoranceRhetoricSociologyAction (physics)AestheticsSocial functionMedia studiesEpistemologyLinguisticsLiteratureSocial scienceArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores questions of the permissible and the impermissible in breast cancer narratives. It deploys (inter alia) a theory of discourse and counterdiscourse to argue that the genre itself of the personal narrative performs a regulatory function in public discourse on cancer. The paper is inspired by an idea introduced into science studies by Schiebinger and Proctor—the idea of agnotology: the cultural production of ignorance. The paper argues that ignorance about cancer is maintained, in part, by the rehearsal of stories that have standard plots and features, and that suppress or displace other stories. The paper turns on examples of both conventional and unconventional stories. It focuses on Barbara Ehrenreich’s renegade cancer story and its public reception, and Wendy Mesley’s renegade cancer television documentary and the public reception of that. The paper seeks to contribute to genre studies by analyzing instances of a genre of public discourse, and suggesting the nature of the social action performed by the genre itself.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.880
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.196 · 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