The incurable metastatic breast cancer experience through metaphors: the fight and the unveiling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: War metaphors are omnipresent in public and medical discourse on cancer . If some studies suggest that cancer patients may view their experiences as afight, few studies focus on the metaphors that patients create from their subjective experiences. The aim was to better understand the experience of four women with incurabale metastatic breast cancer from the metaphors they used in personal cancer blogs.Methods: An interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) was used to analyze these women's experience and metaphors of cancer.Results: Two metaphors carried the meaning of metastatic breast cancer experience: the fight and the unveiling. The results show that the war metaphor had a unique meaning for the bloggers who lived with incurable breast cancer: they revealed the difficulty of fighting cancer and eventually collapsing in battle, although a renewed look at life had developed in parallel to their struggle. The bloggers thus tried to lift the veil on this complex experience.Conclusion: The results highlight the need for women with metastatic breast cancer to be able to tell and share their experience in a supportive context and to reinvest the war metaphor in order to express themselves in a more authentic way.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".