Faux masculinities among college men who experience depression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Depression is a significant problem among college men that can be complicated by masculine ideals of stoicism, reluctance to seek help, and risky self-management strategies. Underpinning these issues are complexities in recognizing what behaviors might be indicative of college men's depressive symptoms. Findings drawn from a qualitative study of 25 Canadian-based college men who self-identified or were diagnosed with depression revealed three predominant masculine identities: the angry man; the solitary man; and the risk-reliant man. Within each of these themes men embodied aspects of idealized masculinity that were difficult to distinguish as symptoms of depression or as representative of the activities with which many college men partake. The angry man identity described men who expressed anger, at least in part, to dissipate depression invoked pain and emotional distress. The solitary man category included men who self-isolated, fearing that others would recognize and judge them as harboring depression. Risk-reliant men employed strategies including alcohol and other drug overuse rather than relinquish control by engaging with professional health care providers and services. Guided by the overall findings we argue this phenomenon as 'faux masculinities' - characterized by men's engagement in practices consistent with idealized masculine identities but that emerge from and/or in response to the experience of depression. Faux masculinities are discussed within the context of the challenges posed for college men and their health care providers in pointing toward targeted depression interventions.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".