MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2077048790 · doi:10.1093/shm/15.1.17

Breast Cancer and the Language of Risk, 1750-1950

2002· article· en· W2077048790 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

VenueSocial History of Medicine · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicHistorical Studies on Reproduction, Gender, Health, and Societal Changes
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerFemininityFamily historyDiseasePerspective (graphical)Period (music)Risk factorMenopauseHistoryMedicineSociologyGender studiesCancerPsychologyAestheticsPathologySurgeryArtInternal medicineVisual arts

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The language of risk, in relation to disease, is usually viewed as having developed in the post-war era, but in fact it has a much longer history. Focusing on the period from the mid-eighteenth century to the mid-twentieth century, this article examines evolving beliefs about what makes women vulnerable to breast cancer and traces the history of certain 'risk factors', such as the presence of benign breast disease, the experience of injury to the breast, the influence of unhappy emotions, the onset of menopause, and a family history of cancer. It situates beliefs about breast cancer within their social and cultural contexts, examining ideas concerning the relationship between mind and body, the impact of new medical knowledge, the social meanings of cancer, definitions of femininity and images of the female body, and women's own views on what places them at risk. It concludes that an historical perspective adds an important dimension to our contemporary understanding of the concept of medical 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 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, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.762
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 studies0.0000.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.203 · 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