Knowledge and behaviour of men who have sex with men towards HIV/AIDS in the French Community of Belgium
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: To understand the epidemiological situation within Me group of men having sex with men by presenting the main results of a study on knowledge and behaviour of this target group in the French Community of Belgium. Methods: Survey by self-administered questionnaires carried out in 2004 and 2005 in the French Community of Belgium and disseminated through gay commercial and associative organisms as well as through the Internet. Results: 942 questionnaires were collected. The majority of respondents have a high level of education, define themselves as homosexuals and are sexually active. The majority have had more than one partner in the last year. They have a good knowledge of ways of transmission and new treatments. Recourse to HIV testing and the level of protection during anal intercourse are both high. Nevertheless, a quarter of respondents admit to have had at least one unprotected anal intercourse in the last year with a partner whose HIV status is unknown or different from their own. HIV posidve men, and men who are not sure about their HIV status, are more likely to admit unprotected anal intercourses. Conclusions: Targeted prevention interventions are still necessary in Me group of men having sex with men, focusing on HIV positive men.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".