MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385798826 · doi:10.1111/1467-9566.13697

Men’s Health in Northern Ireland: Why do we need a men’s health policy?

2023· review· en· W4385798826 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Erin Early, Paula Devine

Bibliographic record

VenueSociology of Health & Illness · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsMental healthHealth policyNarrativePublic healthPopulationPopulation healthMedicinePolitical sciencePsychologyEnvironmental healthPsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Males accounted for half the United Kingdom population in 2021 yet they fail to be prioritised in health and social policies. As examining the health of males and females collectively falls short in accounting for the complexities associated with gendered health outcomes, male health should be considered as a separate policy issue. The island of Ireland has two jurisdictions, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland (NI); however, only the former has implemented a men's health policy. As well as a policy vacuum within NI, few studies have comprehensively examined male health. To address this shortcoming, a narrative review of males' physical and mental health trends in NI is presented to determine the need for a men's health policy. A collation of secondary administrative data and survey data was conducted. The narrative review highlights the importance of utilising a holistic framework to understand men's health. Key findings include high male suicide rates and young males being more likely to report certain mental health problems. The study concludes that a male health policy is needed. To achieve this, a Health Impact Pyramid was developed, and it illustrates practical steps that can be taken to support decision-makers, service providers and individual males.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.094

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSociology of Health & IllnessSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207