Exploring artmaking as a source of metaphor for women’s cancer experiences: A phenomenological study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metaphoric language is common in cancer discourse. However, prevailing military and journey metaphors may not capture variation in cancer experiences. In this article, the authors describe an art-based community research programme for women who had experienced cancer. Taking a phenomenological approach, the article examines how artmaking processes and materials were used by the study participants to shape their own metaphoric thought and, thereby, to articulate a more intimate understanding of their cancer experiences. The authors discuss four themes arising from their findings: (1) experiencing metaphor at its source, (2) artworks as insight cultivators, (3) art as process and metaphor for understanding cancer and (4) alternative metaphors for the cancer experience. Artmaking may be a means to enhance phenomenological data collection in the context of cancer experiences. By capturing variation in women’s cancer experiences, it may also lead to improvements in cancer survivorship care.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 it