Exploring Teacher and Parent Perspectives on School-Based Masculinities in Relation to Mental Health Promotion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The capacity for boys’ and young men’s mental health promotion to actviashifting masculine norms that are linked to poor mental health outcomes, highlights the need to improve the extent to which school-based programs can promote mental health through leveraging more positive embodiments of masculinity. To-date, the perspectives of parents and teachers on such processes are understudied. This qualitative study presents teacher and parent views regarding adolescent masculinities and avenues for school-based developmental programming for boys and young men. In this study, 16 individual qualitative interviews were undertaken with 10 parents (six females, four males), and six teachers (three females, three males), recruited from an independent all-boys’ grammar school in Melbourne, Australia. Thematic analysis of parents’ and teachers’ perspectives indicated their perception of the role of context-dependent “public” and “private” masculinities, the influence of Australian masculinity norms, and the role of private boys’ school cultures in the development of adolescent masculinities. Additionally, strategies for development encompassed participants’ appetite for boys’ exposure to positive role models, in addition to consistent and relevant developmental programming to support positive masculinity development. Findings have implications for efforts to support prosocial masculine identity developmentviaschool-based initiatives, as an avenue to promoting mental health of boys and young men.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".