An exploration of Francophone and Francophile men’s representation of prostate cancer: An ethnographic study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Worldwide, men’s health and wellness promotion employ various models and conceptions of masculinity. Masculinities are subjectively experienced and influenced by social differences such as race, class, and sexual orientation. Largely because it threatens men’s gender identity and sexuality, prostate cancer is a prominent and sensitive health issue. How men think, speak about, and represent prostate cancer is affected by their cultural, social, moral, and religious values and beliefs. Methods. Based on data from a larger ethnographic study, this article reports on Francophone and Francophile immigrant men’s experiences and representations of prostate cancer. Data were collected from interviews with 19 men in the cities of Gonesse and Paris, France, using a tool inspired by (core) social representation theory, and submitted to content analysis. Results. Similar views between the two groups of men suggest that the representation of prostate cancer prevalent in French society held more sway over the men’s attitudes and thoughts than any alternative cultural views from the immigrants’ particular ethnic backgrounds. Conclusions. The confirmed view of prostate cancer as a disease with neither a positive nor a negative meaning offered opportunities for the men to re-evaluate their lives and plan their future with realistic expectations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".