MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947387337 · doi:10.1093/heapro/daz049

Canadian men’s health stigma, masculine role norms and lifestyle behaviors

2019· article· en· W2947387337 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Donald R. McCreary, John L. Oliffe, Nick Black, Ryan Flannigan, Joe Rachert, S. Larry Goldenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Promotion International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCampbell Scientific (Canada)Brock University
FundersPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsStigma (botany)PsychologyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyMasculinityMedicineGerontologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Men are at high risk for both morbidity and premature mortality from several of the most common serious diseases. Although numerous factors have been identified to explain men's risk, this study focused on the relationship between lifestyle behaviors, health-related self-stigma and masculine role norms. An age and location stratified sample of 2000 Canadian men completed measures assessing five lifestyle behaviors (smoking, alcohol use, sleep, diet and exercise), a screen for depression, and measures of self-stigma and masculine role norms. The results showed that elements of both health-related self-stigma and masculine role norms were associated with increased risk for being above the clinical threshold for four of the lifestyle behaviors and depression. The most frequent and largest relationships were associated with exercise and depression. The total number of lifestyle behaviors for which participants were above the clinical cut-points was also associated with self-stigma and masculine role norms. These findings demonstrate the importance of health-related self-stigma and masculine role norms as potential barriers to men's health and well-being.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.402
Threshold uncertainty score0.574

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Promotion InternationalSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207