Making sense of humour among men in a weight-loss program: A dialogical narrative approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Humour appears to be an important aspect of health-promoting efforts for some men. A better understanding of the role humour plays in men’s health contexts may provide insight into the optimal design of health interventions for men. In this study, we explored the role banter, humour that blurs the line between playfulness and aggression, plays for men in a men’s weight loss context. We applied dialogical narrative analysis to thirty interviews conducted with men involved in a men’s weight-loss program that leverages competition to drive weight loss. Banter served several functions for men in the program, including allowing them to determine their social position during early group formation, feel good, develop camaraderie, experience respite, provide male inter-personal support in a counter-intuitive way, and ‘be themselves’. Men could use banter as a tool to develop resilience for themselves, but could also adapt their approach to use banter as a means of providing support for others. Banter could also cause trouble, through conflict and misunderstandings, primarily understood through a lens of narratives of progressiveness, inclusiveness, and a ‘changing culture’. Banter could do harm, by positioning oneself against certain characteristics, and as a tool to get under people’s skin. However, an approach-orientation to one’s problems may allow misunderstandings that arise due to banter to lead to enhanced group cohesion. Intervention developers ought to explicitly address the potential for banter (and humour more broadly) to have positive and negative effects in men’s health contexts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".