Men, Masculinities, and Hemophilia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hemophilia is a congenital bleeding disorder that predominantly affects men. Home intravenous replacement of missing clotting factor is the most effective treatment; however, the uptake of preventative treatment (also known as prophylaxis) varies among men with hemophilia. The purpose of the current qualitative study was to describe the connections between masculinities and men's (n = 11) experiences of hemophilia across varying age groups. The inductively derived findings revealed bleed-related joint pain as the primary prompt for men to treat or seek medical help. Many men reported experiencing a high number of bleed-related injuries in adolescence, particularly in high school, oftentimes as a result of engaging in idealized masculine physical activities. Though the limitations imposed by hemophilia were contested by most men early on in their lives, as men grow older more conservative approaches were employed both in terms of treatment and activity to reduce the potential for residual bleed-related disabilities. Overall, the results indicate that men with hemophilia may benefit from peer and professional education about recognition, prevention, and optimal treatment of bleeds. Furthermore, masculine ideals act as important context in which men navigate hemophilia management practices and may facilitate contesting or conceding behaviors. Masculine ideals of strength and control may be garnered to facilitate optimal hemophilia management practices.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".