Breast cancer representations in Canadian news media: a critical discourse analysis of meanings and the implications for identity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the importance of critical media work, much is to be learned about breast cancer representations within media discourses and the implications for women’s identity construction. Building on research from Australia from a discursive perspective, this article used an eclectic approach to critical discourse analysis to explore the cultural construction of breast cancer in 25 detailed stories within Canada’s two national newspapers, The Globe and Mail and the National Post. Ten images accompanying stories and 17 advertisements/public service announcements were also analyzed to contextualize discourses and subject positions/identities within the stories. Analysis of this media affords the unique opportunity to explore taken for granted assumptions and prevailing meanings about breast cancer and the implications for subjectivity. Two primary discourses were identified: a discourse of biomedicine and a discourse of healthism. Subject positions identified included “breast cancer survivor,” “the good consumer,” and the “medical expert.” The psychological, social, political, and health promotion implications are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.033 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".