Women's perceptions of heart disease and breast cancer and the association with media representations of the diseases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined differences in perceptions of heart disease compared with breast cancer and if the differences are reflected in media presentations of the diseases. Relationships of differences in perceptions to demographic groups, heart disease risk factors and health behaviors were examined. Study 1 was a quantitative content analysis of articles and advertisements related to heart disease or breast cancer. There were greater perceptions of susceptibility, preventability and controllability of heart disease and lower perceptions regarding seriousness, fearfulness and extent to which family history determines disease development of heart disease compared with breast cancer. Five times more pieces related to breast cancer were found compared with heart disease. Study 2 was a survey of 1524 women. More articles and advertisements about breast cancer than heart disease were found, and survey participants reported seeing significantly more breast cancer than heart disease media. Younger women had greater perceived susceptibility of breast cancer relative to heart disease while the content analysis revealed that the heart disease pieces were more likely to feature women older than 40 years of age. This research is an important step in the development of theories regarding causal effects of media on health perceptions and behaviors.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".