Reformulating the Worker Identity: Men’s Experiences After Radical Prostatectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The number of men in the Canadian workforce who have prostate cancer is increasing. The purpose of the study was to explore the processes involved in men’s return to work post radical prostatectomy and understand how these events are connected to masculinities. Drawing on data collected through individual interviews with 24 participants, constructivist grounded theory method was used to develop the substantive theory of Reformulating the Worker Identity which comprises two processes, recovering after radical prostatectomy and renegotiating work expectations. Recovering after radical prostatectomy revealed how men overcame side effects at home and evaluated their potential for returning to work. Renegotiating work expectations included participant’s strategies for securing graduated return to work accommodations. Study findings revealed that the challenges for fully returning to work post prostatectomy are often underestimated by clinicians and patients. In this context, preempting return to work challenges preoperatively might allay significant anxieties for many men.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".