Bibliographic record
Abstract
Masculinity is a social construction that defines itself according to context. Older men constitute an unseen minority when it comes to their health, and thus the study of masculinity as it relates to health in older men requires deeper understanding. This article offers insights into how gender, health, and ageing interact for older men and explores how men negotiate the concept of masculinity in later life. The findings from two complementary studies are presented and discussed. The first study, a qualitative analysis of focus group discussions held with 48 community-dwelling older men, indicates that the desire to uphold hegemonic ideals of independence, self-reliance, and imperviousness to pain and illness are embedded in older men's health-related beliefs and behaviors. Ill health and help seeking are often perceived as a threat to the masculine identity, and taking action for health is considered only when health status jeopardizes independence. In the second study, more than 2,000 men aged 55 to 97 years responded to a postal survey on health behaviors and masculinity. Results of the survey indicated that age predicts health behaviors and health care seeking better than scores on a masculinity index, which tended to remain stable regardless of age. Both the qualitative and quantitative findings support the hypothesis that with age men will succeed in incorporating actions into their daily lives in a way that does not conflict with their perceived resilience to frailty and weakness, even if such actions involve seeking help for illness or adopting healthier lifestyle behaviors.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".