MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411230309 · doi:10.1177/1097184x251350276

“Asking for Help was Really Helpful, but Definitely Hard to Say”: A Comparative Analysis of the Intersection of Disability and Masculinity

2025· article· en· W4411230309 on OpenAlexafffund
Robert Wilton, Ann Fudge Schormans

Bibliographic record

VenueMen and Masculinities · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMasculinityIntersection (aeronautics)PsychologySociologyGender studiesSocial psychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A small body of work has examined the intersection of masculinity and disability. Key early studies focused attention on the ways in which men with acquired physical disabilities negotiated this dilemma, and the extent to which their strategies contested or reproduced gender norms. Recent work has called for greater attention to the diversity of men’s experiences across disabilities, as well as the dynamic and shifting configurations of gender and disability. In this paper, we engage with recent disability studies scholarship to consider how gender relations and masculinity intersect with ableism as a system of oppression. We draw on qualitative arts-informed research to present a comparative analysis of three men’s embodied experiences of chronic physical illness, intellectual disability, and psychiatric disability. The analysis highlights how complex relations between disability, (re)habilitation, breadwinning and heteronormative domesticity shape the lives and identities of all three men, albeit in quite different ways. As such, the paper provides an important illustration of the varied, dynamic, and often contradictory ways in which men negotiate gendered experiences of illness and disablement.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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