MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138178031 · doi:10.1177/1557988310379152

Men, Food, and Prostate Cancer: Gender Influences on Men’s Diets

2010· review· en· W2138178031 on OpenAlex
Lawrence Mróz, Gwen E. Chapman, John L. Oliffe, Joan L. Bottorff

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Men s Health · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsProstate cancerMasculinityPsychological interventionContext (archaeology)GerontologyMedicineCancerGynecologyPsychologyInternal medicineNursingBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although healthy eating might enhance long-term survival, few men with prostate cancer make diet changes to advance their well-being. Men's typically poor diets and uninterest in self-health may impede nutrition interventions and diet change. Food choice behavior is complex involving many determinants, including gender, which can shape men's health practices, diets, and prostate cancer experiences. Developing men-centered prostate cancer nutrition interventions to engage men (and where appropriate their partners) in promoting healthy diets can afford health benefits. This article presents an overview and synthesis of current knowledge about men's food practices and provides an analysis of diet and diet change behaviors for men with prostate cancer. Masculinity and gender relations theory are discussed in the context of men's food practices, and suggestions for future applications to nutrition and prostate cancer research and diet interventions are made.

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)0.002
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.975
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.353 · 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