Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this project was to create a discussion among breast cancer surviving women about their perceptions of body image, femininity, and women’s breasts in connection with their cancer diagnosis and treatment. This paper was an assigned project for a feminist research course on body image and allowed students to only interview participants whom they knew personally. This condition limited the research to a convenience sample made up of six women within the interviewer’s family and friendship circle. The subjects have similar sociodemographic characteristics including ethnicity, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status, as they are all heterosexual white women of similar socioeconomic status who reside in the same geographical area. That being said, the narratives of all participants are unique, thus highlighting the significance of Patricia Hill Collins’ notion that we are all knowledge-makers. The author’s motivation to focus on breast cancer was due to her upcoming genetic testing for the BRCA1 gene mutation, sometimes referred to as the “breast cancer gene”. This paper’s purpose was to engage with a sample of women through semi-structured interviews about how diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer affect body image and sense of femininity, specifically as they relate to their relationship with their breasts. The findings in this study show that both diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer is a very individual experience. Overall, most women found themselves to be more mindful of their bodies after cancer treatment. Some women found that their sense of womanhood (as they define it for themselves) had been weakened after diagnosis and treatment, while others were more easily able to accept the ways their bodies have changed. The information collected may benefit those who work with breast cancer patients through medical or social interventions because the results suggest that women respond to breast cancer in very unique ways, affecting one’s choice of path to treatment as well as one’s relationship with their body.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".