Help‐seeking among Male Farmers: Connecting Masculinities and Mental Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In many ways, male farmers can be considered to be a vulnerable group in relation to mental health, experiencing high rates of suicide, psychological distress and low use of health services. This study highlights important connections between rurality, farming and masculinities in the context of men's mental health. In‐depth interviews with 32 male farmers from Q uebec, C anada were completed focusing on stress and coping strategies. Findings include informal and formal strategies. Many participants had previous positive experience of formal help and would be willing to use such help again and to recommend it to others in need. Those without such experience are sceptical about services but recognise the courage it requires to seek help. Pride and lack of knowledge about services are the main barriers to help‐seeking, but it can be legitimated in certain contexts, such as divorce or other psychosocial crisis, and by alignment with particular male ideals. Role models at national or local levels can also help farmers prioritise their own and their family's wellbeing over stigmas and rigid, traditional masculine ideals. Furthermore, gender‐based strengths and recommendations for practice are also discussed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".