Exploring northern British Columbian firearm owning men’s experiences around accessing mental health treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Firearm owning men appear hesitant to access mental health services in Canada.This is an issue as firearm related deaths are overwhelmingly caused by male suicide and by men killing their domestic partners.Encouraging access to services may limit the number of these deaths.However, no research has been undertaken directly asking men about their experiences in seeking out mental health treatment.This research is aimed to understand what firearm owning men experience when seeking out mental health treatment.The purpose of this study was to gain insight into why men may be hesitant to access services, and to consider what approaches may encourage them to access services.This research was limited to the geographical area of Northern BC.This study also may not have been able to connect with men who felt the most hesitancy due to their reluctance to engage with myself due to his professional affiliation.This thesis used primary and secondary data.The primary data was collected via semistructure qualitative interviews done with six firearm owning men living in Northern British Columbia.The secondary data was from a variety of sources obtained via relevant literature, academic databases, government publications, and online sources.The thesis was an exploratory qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and thematic analysis.This research suggests that men value their firearms for extrinsic and intrinsic reasons.The majority of men had some hesitancy towards accessing services, with the major obstacle being concern over losing their firearms and how this would impact their lives.Suggestions to increase the likelihood of men accessing treatment are aimed at general practitioners and legislators with special emphasis on the government developing clearer processes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".