Hope and Probability: Patient Perspectives of the Meaning of Numerical Information in Cancer Communication
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
Although the complexities inherent in human communication make it a difficult target for empirical investigation and systematic interpretation, it is well recognized that patient-provider communication can have either a powerfully negative or positive influence on the experience of cancer. Drawing on an extensive data set derived from interviews with 200 cancer patients, the authors examine the impact of information provided in numerical form within cancer care communications from the patient perspective. In this context, they present findings related to various uses and abuses of numbers within cancer care communication, and illustrate how numerical information constitutes a specialized communication form with considerable potency for shaping the cancer experience. In particular, accounts of the thematic relationship between numbers and hope, from the perspective of those on the receiving end of cancer care, provide a unique perspective from which to interpret issues of compassion, caring, and informed consent.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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