RESPONSES TO ADVERSITY FACED BY FARMING MEN: A GENDER-TRANSFORMATIVE ANALYSIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The values that characterize the traditional and stereotypical image of rural masculinity put pressure on farming men to engage with risky behaviours, both physical and mental, and reduce their willingness to seek help. This paper investigates individual and social responses to adversity, under the lenses of response-based practice and gender-transformative health promotion. Our method is based on qualitative semi-structured interviews with 32 farming men and 2 focus group interviews with 14 experts on men’s health, farming, and rural social work. Results suggest gender is negotiated through individual and social responses to adversity, with fluid transitions between conformity and resistance with regard to traditional masculinity. Individual responses to adversity can include negative or positive coping strategies. Social responses can be supportive, or they can be marginalizing, such as the devaluation of farming. For farmers facing adversity, there is a disparity in social support, with communal solidarity being evident in a material crisis, but not in a personal one. Some community-based responses are highlighted for their ability to support farming men in coping with adversity.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".