Male Body Practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pressure on boys and men to engage in extensive body practices (e.g., closely monitored eating and exercise habits) and achieve ideal male bodies has grown significantly over the past 20 years. Central to the depiction of ideal male bodies and body practices are both the pursuit and achievement of lean and well-defined muscles. The labels "pitches," "purchases," and "performativities" were inductively derived from the literature, and used to describe the multifaceted connections between masculinities, muscularity, and idealized male body practices. "Pitches" distil how popular culture posture norms of masculinity, and manly bodies and behaviors attainable and necessary. "Purchases" refer to men's diverse buy-in to dominant discourses about acceptable male bodies and practices. "Performativities" chronicle how men embody and navigate gender norms as they evaluate their own bodies, behaviors, and eating habits and those of their peers. Based on findings from the current scoping review, future research could benefit from fully linking masculinities with the drive for muscularity to address health and social risks associated with the pursuit of the idealized male body. In highlighting the plurality of masculinities and the complexity of men's diverse identities, health care providers can better reach and support men. Focusing on, and celebrating, a wider range of male bodies could help recenter dominant discourses about how and whose bodies and experiences are idealized. The current scoping review article offers an overview of how masculinities and muscularity have been linked to male body practices, and recommendations to advance this emergent field.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.033 | 0.004 |
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".