Theorising masculinities and men’s health: A brief history with a view to practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sex comparisons reveal men as more likely than women to die earlier and experience debilitating injury. Historically, this trend has been positioned as somewhat inevitable, an outcome of men’s ‘natural’ biologically charged tendencies for risk-taking and reluctance around help-seeking. More recently, gender research has emerged to describe cultural norms about masculinity and explore their relationships to men’s health and illness practices. Empirically, masculinities and men’s health research has revealed diverse practices that suggest some men’s risky health behaviours are amenable to change. This article provides a brief review of how masculinity has been understood in men’s health research before making recommendations for where we might next go in theorising social constructions of masculinities. Specifically, a vignette drawn from a study examining young men’s responses to the death of a peer is used to illustrate how the communities of practice framework can be applied, and might conceptually advance future masculinities and men’s health research.
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 | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.049 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".