MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2025301863 · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.12045

Men managing cancer: a gender analysis

2013· article· en· W2025301863 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Health & Illness · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)StoicismPsychologyCancerSocial psychologySociologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As researchers consider gendered patterns in men's prostate cancer experiences, little attention has been devoted to how men manage 'cancer', more generally. Drawing on the experiences of 30 Canadian men with a variety of cancer types, this article details how men engaged illness self-management and help-seeking activities with lay and professional support persons. Results indicate three broad responsive strategies: fortifying resources, maintaining the familiar, and getting through. In these pursuits, the participants drew on a variety of performances to respond to social contexts demanding that men embody masculine ideals including strength, control, and stoicism. Considering gendered dynamics in how men manage the challenges of cancer, this article broadens understandings about men's cancer experiences by highlighting the drivers orienting participants' responsive efforts and challenging assumptions of help-seeking as essentially problematic for men in Western society.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score0.941

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.375
Teacher spread0.328 · 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