MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144342585 · doi:10.1080/0891060310002203

The Meaning of Breast Cancer

2003· article· en· W2144342585 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

VenueActa Oncologica · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsSt. Boniface Hospital
FundersCancerfonden
KeywordsMedicineBreast cancerChoseMeaning (existential)WeaknessDiseaseCoping (psychology)PerceptionCancerSurgeryPsychiatryPsychotherapistInternal medicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Breast cancer patients' perception of illness could influence preferences in decision-making. According to Lipowsky, the meaning of illness might influence coping abilities and he suggests eight categories of meaning as prevalent in our culture: 'challenge', 'enemy', 'punishment', 'weakness', 'irreparable loss', 'relief', 'strategy' and 'value'. In this study 187 Swedish breast cancer patients chose one of these eight categories as their meaning of breast cancer. 'Challenge' was chosen most often, by 33% of all patients and by 40% of patients in middle life (51-65 years). Older patients (> or = 66 years) chose 'challenge' less frequently (17%) but chose 'relief', 'strategy' or 'value' more often than younger patients. The few patients with metastatic disease chose 'enemy', 'punishment', 'weakness' and 'irreparable loss' more often than patients in the earlier stages of disease. There were differences in perception of illness depending on patients' age and stage of disease but not depending on their preferences in decision-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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.245
GPT teacher head0.459
Teacher spread0.214 · 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