MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754842386 · doi:10.1177/1060826517729406

Men’s Mental Health Services: The Case for a Masculinities Model

2017· article· en· W2754842386 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Men s Studies · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthGovernment (linguistics)Diversity (politics)Promotion (chess)PsychologyPublic relationsService (business)Mental health servicePolitical sciencePoliticsPsychiatryBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is well understood that men are reticent in seeking help for mental health concerns. In the wake of government-funded campaigns across many Western nations that have sought to address this, noticeably absent have been the active development, promotion, dissemination, and rigorous evaluation of male-centered treatment styles. We argue that next-generation approaches must actively counteract unhelpful stereotypes, instead promoting diverse and healthy masculinities. The current article makes the case for the development of a masculinities model of mental health care, offering recommendations to advance clinical practice and research toward this goal. We propose that updated help-seeking campaigns and clinician training, gender-sensitive service provision, and comprehensive cost analyses will provide the groundwork for such a model to better target the diversity in men and reduce any reluctance to engage with mental health treatment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.133
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it