MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3171240179 · doi:10.18584/iipj.2021.12.2.10896

Power of Connections: How a Novel Canadian Men’s Wellness Program is Improving the Health and Well-Being of Indigenous and Non-Indigenous Men

2021· article· en· W3171240179 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Iloradanon Efimoff, Lyana Patrick, Viviane Josewski, Paul A. Gross, Sandy Lambert, Victoria Smye

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Indigenous Policy Journal · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaSimon Fraser UniversityWestern UniversityUniversity of Manitoba
FundersStrong
KeywordsClubIndigenousGeneral partnershipMasculinityFocus groupHealth carePower (physics)Reproductive healthSociologyGender studiesCommunity healthNursingPolitical scienceGerontologyPublic relationsMedicinePublic healthAnthropologyDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The DUDES Club is a novel men’s health and wellness organization founded in 2010 in Vancouver, BC. Since 2017, the DUDES Club has rapidly expanded in Northern BC and, with the help of a partnership with the First Nations Health Authority, has grown to include 40 sites in British Columbia and 2 sites nationally. In this study, we analyze interviews (n = 5) and 15 focus groups (n = 101) conducted as part of a program evaluation with DUDES Club members, Elders, providers, and health care professionals. We focus on men’s experiences with the DUDES Club to identify four main themes in the data: brotherhood and community, accessible health care information, disrupting colonial constructions of masculinity, and systemic and structural challenges. We conclude with policy recommendations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.273

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0490.017
Scholarly communication0.0060.002
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Indigenous Policy JournalSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207