Connecting Masculinities to Men’s Illness Vulnerabilities and Resilience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Men's illness vulnerabilities and resilience are two predominant and regularly linked constructs in the masculinities and men's health literature. There has been a steady stream of men's strength-based vulnerabilities in the form of illness testimonials amid critiques that such disclosures are mere props for bolstering patriarchal power. The current article presents secondary analyses of case studies with four participants who took part in wide-ranging qualitative health studies to detail diverse connections between masculinities and men's illness vulnerabilities and resilience. Prostate cancer-related vulnerabilities feature in the first case study where Arthur's resilience for reclaiming his erectile function post-prostatectomy mobilizes an objection masculinity contesting his marginality. In the second case study, Chuck's vulnerabilities are conceded as permanent flowing from his severe mental illness, a positionality situating resilience as obligatory for his survival. Here, Chuck embodies a resignate masculinity that accepts but works to manage the harms of his subordinate status. In the aftermath of his young son's suicide, Jack laments that he did not model vulnerabilities. Resilience for understanding his loss influences a reimagined masculinity where Jack contemplates changes to gender norms for his and other men's lives. Lastly, Sami replaces maladaptive actions for dousing vulnerabilities incurred through a partner-initiated separation with resilience for self-growth. Aspiring progress masculinity, Sami deconstructs his emotions and behaviors to positively change how he shows up as a man, father, and partner. The case studies reveal connections between objection, resignate, reimagined, and progress masculinities and men's illness vulnerabilities and resilience to advance empirical, gender theory and methodological insights.
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 | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".