The Use of Culturally Appropriate Representations of Distress in the Treatment of Mental Illness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study compares the experiences of men who conceptualized their distress in cultural or religious terms (Al-Krenawi & Graham, 1999;Dein, Alexander, & Napier, 2008) and sought relevant treatments with the experiences of men who were treated for mental illness by psychiatrists.Using grounded theory methodology (Fassinger, 2005), results indicate that men who represented their distress in cultural or religious terms were not stigmatized and were instead treated with sympathy.They were therefore able to express their distress and seek help rather than resort to avoidant and selfdestructive behaviors typical of men suffering from mental illness (Brownhill, Wilhelm, Barclay & Schmied, 2005;Chuick et. al., 2009).Moreover, shifting the cause of dysfunctional behavior to external entities enabled them to transcend typical gender role socialization that emphasizes stoicism and autonomy (Sheppard, 2002) and allowed the expression of weakness and vulnerability.
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 | 0.017 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".