MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411078841 · doi:10.3998/ergo.7972

A Little Bit of Cancer?

2025· article· en· W4411078841 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueErgo an Open Access Journal of Philosophy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Should we say a little bit of cancer? Many argue that we should avoid the phrase and instead relabel early cancers as a strategy to prevent overtreatment. Against this, I argue that we should not shy away from saying a little bit of cancer, and, moreover, that shying away misses a key opportunity to address the problem of overtreatment. Drawing on speech act theory, I examine the diagnosis of cancer as an illocutionary speech act and argue for a revisionist strategy which seeks to shift the normative force of the cancer diagnosis qua speech act. I show how this strategy offers distinct advantages vis-à-vis alternative approaches to tackling the problem of overtreatment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.782
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.494
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueErgo an Open Access Journal of PhilosophySame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207