MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313679950 · doi:10.1177/1097184x221149985

Connecting Australian Masculinities and Culture to Mental Health: Men’s Perspectives and Experiences

2023· article· en· W4313679950 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Sharp, John L. Oliffe, Joan L. Bottorff, Simon Rice, Nico Schulenkorf, Cristina M. Caperchione

Bibliographic record

VenueMen and Masculinities · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersFaculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne
KeywordsMental healthTransformative learningGender studiesMasculinitySociologyPsychologyFocus groupGerontologyDevelopmental psychologyMedicineAnthropologyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Masculinities and culture are intertwined and have significant implications for men’s mental health. This study aimed to explore influences of Australian masculinities and culture on men’s mental health. Five focus groups were conducted with men ( N = 43) living in New South Wales, Australia. Three overarching themes were identified: (1) a history of strength and self-reliance: taketh as we are, she’ll be right, (2) social and geographical divides: surrounded by men but never actually connecting, and (3) male socialisation and generational dissidence: not getting the wisdom from the men that have gone before me. Participants’ perspectives and experiences offer a reference point and lens for understanding challenges and enhancing efforts to promote Australian men’s mental health. Gender transformative program strategies are proposed to promote men’s mental health and help-seeking.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.008
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMen and MasculinitiesSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207