MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1533276204 · doi:10.1111/ajr.12008

Male farmers with mental health disorders: A scoping review

2013· review· en· W1533276204 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippe Roy, Gilles Tremblay, John L. Oliffe, Jalila Jbilou, Steve Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Journal of Rural Health · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAgriculture and Farm Safety
Canadian institutionsHorizon Health NetworkUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversité Laval
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMental healthPsychosocialPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)Intervention (counseling)DistressPsychologyPsychiatryMedicineGerontologyClinical psychologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The issue of male farmers' mental health raises many concerns including high rates of psychological distress and suicide amid the poor uptake of health services among this subgroup. Gender is an important social determinant of health, and this paper provides an overview of connections between farming and masculinities in the context of men's mental health disorders. This scoping review summarises findings drawn from 46 studies to discuss male farmers' mental health disorders, psychosocial interventions and barriers to help-seeking. In providing the review, recommendations are made including the need for an array of study and intervention approaches to advance the mental health and well-being of male farmers and their families.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations88
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Journal of Rural HealthSame topicAgriculture and Farm SafetyFrench-language works237,207