Effect of gender socialization on the presentation of depression among men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To examine the association between men’s conformity to masculine norms and depression. Design Cross-sectional analysis. Setting University family practice clinic in Vancouver, BC. Participants Male patients, 19 years of age and older (N = 97). Main outcome measures The relationships among patients’ scores on the Brief Symptom Inventory–18 depression subscale, Gotland Male Depression Scale, and Conformity to Masculine Norms Inventory, and whether or not patients were prompted to discuss emotional concerns with their physicians after completing these screening tests. Results Conformity to masculine norms was significantly associated with depression as assessed by the male depression screen ( P = .039), but not with the screen that assessed typical depressive symptoms ( P = .068). Men, regardless of their degree of masculinity or distress, overwhelmingly did not disclose emotional concerns to their physicians, even if the content of their distress involved suicidal thoughts. Conclusion Male depression screens might capture aspects of depression associated with masculine gender socialization that are not captured by typical measures of depression. Given the tendency of men to not disclose emotional distress to their family physicians, potentially high-risk cases could be missed without direct inquiry by clinicians.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".