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 study sought to describe how consumers found the Bill Henderson protocol, a dietary intervention for cancer treatment, and to describe their perceptions and evaluation of its effects. In all, 630 surveys were completed online. Most respondents were ages 55 to 74 years old, well-educated, and had experience with a cancer diagnosis. Most respondents identified the Bill Henderson protocol through Internet searches. More than two thirds had used the protocol, although adherence to its components varied. A number of positive attributions were made to the protocol, including cancer cure (n = 73) and improvements in health status indicators (n = 170). Negative attributions included disease progression (n = 10) and death (n = 2). Consumers search for disease management options online. Attributions regarding this intervention’s success or failure are based on anecdotal experience. There has been no empirical investigation of the Bill Henderson protocol’s safety and efficacy to date, limiting the information on which choice can be made. This could place protocol adherents at risk.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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