MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041365628 · doi:10.1177/1359105302007003223

Sexual Dysfunction and the Preservation of Manhood: Experiences of Men with Prostate Cancer

2002· article· en· W2041365628 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMasculinityHuman sexualityProstate cancerPsychologySexual dysfunctionGrounded theoryOddsClinical psychologyCancerDevelopmental psychologyMedicineQualitative researchGender studiesPsychiatrySociologyPsychoanalysisLogistic regression

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored the experiences of men living with sexual dysfunction as a consequence of having been treated for prostate cancer. An ethnoculturally diverse sample of 18 men (14 heterosexual, and four homosexual) participated in a series of four to five in-depth interviews. These one-on-one interviews were designed to elicit information pertaining to their beliefs, values and performances regarding masculinity vis-a-vis prostate cancer and its treatment. Interview transcripts were analyzed using the grounded theory method. The core category of 'Preserving Manhood' incorporated five major themes: enhancing the odds; disrupting a core performance; baring an invisible stigma; effortful-mechanical sex; and working around the loss. We conclude that men's performances of sexuality and masculinity were highly interwoven; that loss of sexual functioning constituted a focal disruption for participants; and in some instances, posed a significant threat to their masculine identities.

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 score0.187
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.324 · 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