Men experienced and responded to the embodied and emotional effects of prostate cancer in different waysCommentary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How does the experience of prostate cancer affect masculine embodiment? Qualitative study using an ethnographic approach. Clinics in the UK. 14 men with prostate cancer and 5 healthcare professionals (1 surgeon, 1 radiotherapist, and 3 specialist nurses). Data were collected through individual interviews, observation of consultations and treatment and waiting areas over 18 months, and from media reports. Interview transcripts and field notes were analysed thematically. (1) Physical change: living with a new body . After prostate cancer, men found that their bodies no longer conformed to conventional ideas of masculinity. Some men accepted changes stoically, while others sought help in managing their losses. Some men were particularly concerned about loss of sexual function, whereas others were more concerned about incontinence: “I did not want my testicles operated on and become incontinent. That would be the end of my life…” Men who received sufficient advance information on their cancer and treatment options appeared to adapt more successfully. Those who lacked control expressed anger and frustration and focused on the damage done to their body. (2) Diagnosis . Most men …
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".