The DUDES Club A brotherhood for men’s health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PROBLEM ADDRESSED: In Canada, there are few health promotion programs for men, particularly programs focused on indigenous and other men marginalized by social and structural inequities. OBJECTIVE OF PROGRAM: To build solidarity and brotherhood among vulnerable men; to promote health through education, dialogue, and health screening clinics; and to help men regain a sense of pride and fulfilment in their lives. PROGRAM DESCRIPTION: The DUDES Club was established in 2010 as a community-based health promotion program for indigenous men in the Downtown Eastside neighbourhood of Vancouver, BC. Between August 2014 and May 2015, 150 men completed an evaluation survey developed using a logic model approach. Responses were analyzed based on the 4 dimensions of the indigenous medicine wheel (mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual). Evaluation results demonstrated high participant satisfaction and positive outcomes across all 4 dimensions of health and well-being: 90.6% of respondents indicated that the DUDES Club program improved their quality of life. Participants who attended meetings more often experienced greater physical, mental, and social benefits (P < .05). CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that this innovative model is effective in promoting the well-being of mainly indigenous men through culturally safe services in an urban community.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".