Living for the moment: men situating risk‐taking after the death of a friend
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The primary cause of death for men under the age of 30 is unintentional injury and, despite health-promotion efforts and programme interventions, male injury and death rates have not decreased in recent years. Drawing on 22 interviews from a study of men, risk and grief, we describe how a risk-related tragedy shaped the participants' understandings of and practices of risk-taking. The findings indicate that most participants did not alter their perceptions and engagement in risky practices, which reflected their alignment to masculine ideals within specific communities of practice where risk-taking was normalised and valorised. Continued reliance on risky practices following the death of a friend was predominantly expressed as 'living for the moment,' where caution and safety were framed as conservative practices that undermined and diluted the robustness ideally embodied by this subgroup of young men. Two main themes: living life, accepting death and upping the ante illustrate how risk-taking can persist following a death. A smaller group of participants articulated a different viewpoint; reining in risk practices, to describe their risk management approaches after the death of a male friend. This novel study confirms the ongoing challenge of reducing men's risk-taking practices, even after the death of a friend.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".