MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403058226 · doi:10.32920/27156450

Canadian Men’s Self-Management of Chronic Diseases: A Literature Analysis of Strategies for Dealing With Risks and Promoting Wellness

2024· preprint· en· W4403058226 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Margareth Santos Zanchetta, Christine Maheu, Olesya Kolisnyk, Mohamed Mohamed, Sepali Guruge, Diana Kinslikh, Joneet Christopher, Melissa Stevenson, CaroLine SanJose, Terry Sizto, Aaron Byam

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRisk analysis (engineering)MedicinePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p>This article reviews the qualitative research on men’s self-management of mental and physical chronic diseases, with emphasis on strategies for dealing with risks and promoting wellness. Using Bardin’s method of document analysis, it was focused on the findings of Canadian qualitative studies published in French or English from 2005 to 2011. Boltanski’s theory on <em>social uses of the body</em> inspired the analysis. Living with a chronic disease threatens men’s sense of masculinity and self-image, as well as their perceived ability to fulfill expected social roles. Social images of men’s bodies influence how men express their emotions, attributes, and attitudes, or acknowledge the need for and seek social affirmation. Self-management has been documented in Canadian qualitative literature as a complex phenomenon influenced by the social environment, personal capacities, feelings, perceptions, and potentials. The extent of how all these features interact within the scope of men’s mental and physical health and illness experiences was partially revealed in this study. The findings underscore the social invisibility of men’s bodies, especially those of men facing social inequities. Attending to principles of social justice can ensure that future research on men’s health will amplify the range of men’s voices and allow them to be heard. Recommendations address also the international scientific community interested in advancing men’s health research, especially in those countries that lack a national men’s health policy.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations6
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular PreventionFrench-language works237,207