The Individualization of Risk and Responsibility in Breast Cancer Prevention Education Campaigns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in women worldwide. The incidence rates are such that one in nine Canadian women will be diagnosed in her lifetime. While social science research has demonstrated the influence of social, political, economic and environmental factors on health outcomes, many still emphasize the role of traditional risk factors for breast cancer, such as family history or diet. However, these factors are unable to account for the increased incidence of the disease in industrialized countries. Thus, there is a call for more attention to environmental links to breast cancer, and as a result, it has become necessary to consider the ‘everyday exposures' that we experience in our daily lives, which often include mammary carcinogens and endocrine disrupting chemicals through exposure to industrial chemicals and toxic substances in consumer products. In this article, the author explores and critiques two breast cancer education campaigns which are promoted by the Canadian federal government and by mainstream breast cancer organizations. Both the responsibilization paradigm and the promotion of precautionary consumption practices engage with issues of risk and responsibility at the level of the individual. This focus on modifiable behaviours and lifestyle factors is highly problematic as it does not adequately account for other determinants of health, particularly those outside one's control, such as environmental contaminants. Only a truly precautionary approach can be effective in protecting women's health.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".