MASCULINITY IN THE REALM OF CARE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The canon that men should be self-reliant coupled with a feminization of self-care and the labor of caring for others diminishes many men’s perceived capability to engage in preventive care as well as devalues the care work they do. The research discussed in this symposium explores the gendered nature of older men’s care, for self or for others, and the consequences of such gendering for the men. The first three presentations engage the performance and meaning of self-care among men. Clark and Bennett discuss how older Canadian men actively draw upon masculinity scripts of physical competency and strength to resist negative perceptions of aging bodies. Leibing’s study of older Canadian men who had embraced experimental stem cell treatment for their heart disease identifies how the men’s cardiac recovery also embraced common masculinity scripts. Smith’s interviews with US veterans incarcerated in maximum-security prison underscore the men’s unmet health needs, and resistance to self-care in a macho culture thick with violence-enforced gender performances. The final presentation addresses the performance and meaning of men’s care work for others. Seaman’s work studies illustrate how men’s caregiving labor is routinely erased, even in caregivers’ own narratives of their labor. Finally, Kaye’s discussion addresses how men’s self-care and care work are obscured when later life masculinities are ignored, or when gender remains equated with the 1950’s sex role model of separate spheres.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".