MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W279560603

Coming to Knowledge about Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Drama. (Discussion Papers/Documents De Travail)

2002· article· en· W279560603 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Christina Sinding, Ross E. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueResources for feminist research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEmpathy and Medical Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDramaSkepticismSociologyHumanitiesReading (process)Breast cancerMedicineCancerPolitical sciencePhilosophyArtLawLiteratureEpistemology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The drama Handle with Care? Women Living with Metastatic Breast Cancer was created by researchers, women with breast cancer, actors and theatre professionals. The process of creating the drama was also a process of creating knowledge. Drawing upon writing by feminist theorists, this article explores the diverse means by which the people involved in creating Handle with Care? acquired, challenged and validated knowledge about the realities and possibilities of living with advanced breast cancer. La piece de theatre Handle with Care? Women Living with Metastatic Breast Cancer a creee par des chercheuses, des femmes qui ont le cancer du sein, des actrices et des professionnelles du theatre. La creation de la piece engageait egalement la creation du savoir. En puisant dans des ecrits de theoristes feministes, cet article sonde differentes facons dont les personnes impliquees dans la creation de Handle with Care? ont acqui, remis en question, et valide le savoir touchant aux realites et aux possibilites qui existent pour celles vivant avec le cancer du sein au stade avance. ********** Over the past few decades, significant critical attention has been directed at conventional theories of knowledge. Dominant epistemologies have been scrutinized with particular skepticism by feminist scholars and activists. Examining entrenched beliefs about how the world is reliably known, many feminists find these beliefs partial: find them incomplete, and find them biased. In the academy, and more broadly, certain epistemic practices have been taken as the only genuinely trustworthy practices: observing, thinking abstractly, reasoning, reading (certain things), (certain kinds of) writing. These practices are sanctioned through their shared norms of justification, norms that are in no way value free. This article is a case study of epistemic practice, an examination of the diverse means by which a group of people acquired and validated a particular knowledge. It describes the process by which a drama, Handle with Care? Women Living with Metastatic Breast Cancer was created, considers the epistemic struggles the script development team encountered, and outlines the practices that brought us to shared knowledge about what it can mean to live with metastatic breast cancer. Using dramatic techniques to create knowledge is not new, of course, as the burgeoning literature on performance ethnography attests (see, for instance, Turner and Turner 1982; Conquergood, 1991; Pelias, 1999). What may be rarer about this particular dramatic foray into knowledge creation are the ways in which our knowledge--and our practices of generating knowledge--were negotiated, and the nature of the group amongst which the negotiation took place. Creating Handle with Care? In January 1998 we met for the first time: members of a research team based at Toronto Sunnybrook Regional Cancer Centre, participants in Act II Studio (a seniors' theatre studies program at Ryerson University), two women with metastatic breast cancer (Jan and Mary Sue) and women active in the breast cancer community. Seated on mismatched chairs in a room at Ryerson, we introduced ourselves and began to talk. Our goal was to create a drama, working from research conducted the previous year about the information needs of women with metastatic breast cancer. For several months we met, exchanged copies of the focus group transcripts, and learned about body sculpture. With the guidance and prompting of Act II Studio's artistic director, Vrenia Ivonoffski, we engaged in an extended process of improvisation, creating a series of (three- or four-person body sculptures and short scenes) from themes identified in the research. Over the summer, Vrenia gathered together the images and scraps of dialogue we had generated in the vignettes and selected from the transcripts, and wrote a script. Multitudinous rehearsals ensued, involving a cast of women with breast cancer, actors and researchers. …

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 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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.357 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResources for feminist researchSame topicEmpathy and Medical EducationFrench-language works237,207