Conceptualizations of health and illness: A test of the theory of male bias.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The theory of male bias states that for various social, political and historical reasons, men and male experiences are used as the standard for the culture (Bem, 1993). The present study tested the theory of male bias by examining the applicability of research from the 1970s which found that health care professionals did exhibit the use of sex bias in conceptualizing clinical functioning (Broverman, Broverman, Clarkson, Rosenkrantz & Vogel, 1970). In an effort to examine the effect of questionnaire methodology, the Sex-Role Stereotype Questionnaire (Broverman, et al., 1970) was presented in both the original forced choice as well as a Likert format. Conceptualizations of illness were also examined. One hundred and twenty-one undergraduate nursing students participated by completing self-report questionnaire packets. Not only were Broverman's et al. (1970) results not replicated when presented in the original forced choice format, but participants exhibited a much wider range of behavioural representations of health. Two explanations in understanding the results of the present study are offered. Concerns about the forced choice methodology originally utilized by Broverman et al. (1970) and the exploration of evolving gender norms are offered as possible explanations for the current results obtained. The present study adds to the inconsistencies about the theory of male bias that already exist in the literature and calls into question the current applicability of Broverman et al.'s (1970) research.Dept. of Psychology. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2002 .T55. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 42-01, page: 0347. Adviser: Stuart Page. Thesis (M.A.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2002.
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 | 0.007 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".