MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967092404 · doi:10.5172/hesr.2010.19.4.522

Unclean fathers, responsible men: Smoking, stigma and fatherhood

2010· article· en· W1967092404 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lorraine Greaves, John L. Oliffe, Pamela Ponic, Mary T. Kelly, Joan L. Bottorff

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Sociology Review · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSmoking Behavior and Cessation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStigma (botany)FeelingHarmFocus groupContext (archaeology)PsychologySocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologySociologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article, we report on the experiences of men who are smokers in the context of new fatherhood and explore the intersections of stigma, masculinities, and contemporary fathering. The men in this ethnographic study reveal both internalised and externalised stigma and describe situations and feelings when they became aware of the stigmatising qualities of smoking as new fathers. Fathers, expectant and new, are beginning to experience the focus of a punitive gaze previously reserved for expectant and new mothers. This gaze is gendered, and fathers who smoke are viewed as disrupting their responsibilities of protector and provider. The findings provide detail for understanding men’s experiences of smoking-related stigma in Canada where smoking prevalence is relatively low, tobacco is denormalised, and smokers are increasingly stigmatised. To develop effective programming for this underserved group, health professionals must become aware of the unintended consequences of tobacco reduction pressures on new fathers, increasing negative public attitudes, and tobacco policies that have the potential to produce stigmabased psychological harm.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations71
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Sociology ReviewSame topicSmoking Behavior and CessationFrench-language works237,207