Book review: "Ideologies of Breast Cancer : Feminist Perspectives" Edited by Laura K. Potts. New York: St. Martin’s Press
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Laura K. Potts’s edited collection of research on the meanings of breast cancer includes authors from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Canada whose perspectives draw on literary criticism, sociology, psychology, and cultural studies among others. The research employs various methodological approaches—for example, media analysis (Saywell et al.), autobiographical narratives (Potts), and analysis of social activism (Fishman)—to elucidate the multiple dimensions and diversity of breast cancer experiences. The first of two parts, “Meanings of Breast Cancer,” presents the problematical relationship between biomedicine and women’s constructions of breast cancer knowledge, the sexualized and maternalized breast in the print media about breast cancer, environmental risks to women’s health in the Bay Area of San Francisco, and women’s narratives of breast cancer and situating the self. In part 2, “Discourses of Risk and Breast Cancer,” examination of the discourses of prevention and risks to health are taken up in relation to breast cancer screening, the problem of prophylactic mastectomy for hereditary breast cancer, and environmental activism...
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.011 |
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".