Men, Masculinities, and Prostate Cancer: Australian and Canadian Patient Perspectives of Communication With Male Physicians
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patient-physician communication is vital in cancer care, and aspects of the patients' experiences provide insight into what constitutes effective cancer communication. Complexities inherent in prostate cancer regarding screening, treatment(s) efficacy, and side effects commonly form the basis of patient-physician discussions. However, the specificities of patient-physician communications, particularly in the male dyad, and the connections to masculinity are poorly understood. The authors used secondary analysis of data from two interview studies of 19 Canadian and 33 Australian prostate cancer survivors who were treated by male general practitioners and prostate cancer specialists. Participants acknowledged that physician expertise and compassion underpinned the development of trust, and both reassurance and humor were effective communication strategies. Participants were often self-directed in researching prostate cancer, consistently using biomedical language and numerical markers when discussing their disease. Analysis of findings enabled interpretations regarding what might be considered prostate cancer communication competencies in the male patient-physician dyad.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it