Overcoming adversity: a grounded theory of health management among middle‐aged and older gay men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents findings from a grounded theory study in which we explored how self-identifying gay men between 40 and 76 years of age manage their health in the context of homophobia, heteronormativity and discrimination. Data were collected with 25 men over a 6-month period in a large urban setting in Western Canada. A preliminary theory of health management is discussed, consisting of the central phenomenon of overcoming adversity. Three thematic processes are considered that illustrate how adversity and health management are situated within the interrelationships of historical and ongoing discrimination inclusive of and external to the healthcare encounter, the complexity of men's illnesses, and the temporal aspects of HIV epidemics and treatments that occurred throughout their lives. These themes include: advocating for health needs, knowing about health issues and treatments, and engaging in health promoting practices. These findings help to address a gap in knowledge concerning health management among older gay men and support that initiatives aimed at health care with gay men must appreciate the systemic role of discrimination, while supporting men's individual efforts in actively managing their health.
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 | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".