Precautionary tales: Exploring the obstacles to debating the primary prevention of breast cancer
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
Incidence of breast cancer is rising globally, with little attention paid by government health planners to upstream causal factors. The research reported here used qualitative methods to explore the usefulness of creating opportunities for dialogue between various `communities of interest' - laypeople, health activists, environmentalists, scientists, health professionals and politicians - concerned about possible environmental factors in breast cancer aetiology. The paper reports discussion of some of the methodological difficulties in investigating the causes of breast cancer, what constitutes `evidence' and the perceived obstacles to adopting a precautionary approach to the prevention of breast cancer. The key difference between viewpoints concerns the appropriate evidence for - and response to - risk. We have argued that these differences are both ideological and epistemological; we are concerned here to identify how a tripartite categorization of positions is articulated through participants' narrative accounts and arguments about how science contributes to the basis for policy making.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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