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

The Meaning of Breast Cancer

2003· article· en· W2144342585 on OpenAlexaff
Birgitta Wallberg, Helena Michelson, Marianne Nystedt, Christina Bolund, Lesley F. Degner, Nils Wilking

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.245
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueActa OncologicaSame topicPatient-Provider Communication in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207