Two Black men with prostate cancer: A narrative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This paper demonstrates the value of a narrative approach for health psychology. It focuses on the lives of two Black men with prostate cancer, drawn from a larger study investigating the links between masculinities and prostate cancer. DESIGN: The study was a qualitative, interview-based study. Each participant was interviewed four times. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The men were asked to describe and discuss their prostate cancer experience, as well as their lives prior to illness. In order to gain a perspective on individual experiences of men with prostate cancer, we took a narrative approach to gathering and analysing data. Results are reported through two descriptive narratives. CONCLUSIONS: The narratives of the men described in the paper show how the interaction of race with health and illness is neither predictable nor consistent at the individual level. Black men, like all men with prostate cancer, have diverse experiences and are influenced by a wide array of personal and societal factors. While the high risk of prostate cancer among Black men makes proactive interventions advisable, such interventions will be most effective if the heterogeneity of men's experiences are taken into account.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".