MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1608204392 · doi:10.18438/b8pp7h

Existing Analytical Frameworks for Information Behaviour Don’t Fully Explain HIV/AIDS Information Exchange in Rural Communities in Ontario, Canada

2010· article· en· W1608204392 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Kate Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Retrieval and Search Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowball samplingInformation exchangeQualitative researchSociologySocial psychologyPsychologyMedicinePublic relationsGerontologyComputer scienceSocial sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Review of: Veinot, T., Harris, R., Bella, L., Rootman, I., & Krajnak, J. (2006). HIV/AIDS Information exchange in rural communities: Preliminary findings from a three-province study. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 30(3/4), 271-290. Objective –To explore and analyze, against three theoretical frameworks of information behaviours, how people with HIV/AIDS, their friends, and their family living in rural communities find information on HIV/AIDS. Design – Qualitative, individual, in-depth, semi-structured interviews. Setting – Two rural regions in Ontario, Canada. Subjects – Sixteen participants; 10 people with HIV/AIDS (PHAs) and 6 family members or friends. Methods – Participants were recruited through health care providers, social service agencies and through snowball sampling. Semi-structure interviews were conducted focusing on participants’ experience with HIV/AIDS, how they find and use information on HIV/AIDS, networks for information exchange and the effect of technology on information exchange. Interviews were taped, transcribed, analyzed qualitatively using NVivo software. Results were compared to three theoretical frameworks for information behaviour: 1. purposeful information seeking (i.e., the idea that people purposefully seek information to bridge perceived knowledge gaps); 2. non-purposeful or incidental information acquisition (i.e., the idea that people absorb information from going about daily activities); and 3. information gate keeping (i.e., the concept of private individuals who act as community links and filters for information gathering and dissemination). Main Results – Consistent with the theories: • PHAs prefer to receive information from people they have a personal relationship with, particularly their physician and especially other PHAs. • PHAs’ friends and families rely on their friends and family for information, and are particularly reliant upon the PHA in their lives. • Fear of stigma and discrimination cause some to avoid seeking information or to prefer certain sources of information, such as healthcare providers, who are bound by codes of professional conduct. • Emotional support is important in information provision and its presence supersedes the professional role of the provider (social workers and counsellors were identified as key information sources over medical professionals in this instance). Participants responded negatively to the perceived lack of support from providers including doubting the information provided. • PHAs monitor their worlds and keep up to date about HIV/AIDS. Inconsistent with theories: • Reliance on caregivers for information is not solely explained by fear of stigma or exposure. Rather, it is the specialized knowledge and immersion in HIV/AIDS which is valued. • The distinction between peer or kin sources of information and institutional information sources is less clear and relationships with professionals can turn personal over time. • Inter-personal connections include organisations, not just individuals, particularly AIDS Service Organizations and HIV specialist clinics. • Relatively few incidents of finding useful information about HIV/AIDS incidentally were described. The concept of information just being “out there” was not really applicable to rural settings, likely due to the lack of discussion within participant communities and local media. When it was discussed, participants reported being more likely to gain misinformation through their personal networks. • Incidental information acquisition originates mostly from professional and organisational sources. Participants identified posters, leaflets, and, for those who interacted with organisations, information via mail as contributing to current awareness. • The gate keeping concept does not capture all the information sharing activities undertaken by “gate keepers” in rural areas, and neither does it include formal providers of information, yet all PHAs interviewed identified formal providers as key sources. Conclusion – The findings reinforce some of the existing analytical framework theories, particularly the importance of affective components (i.e. emotional supports) of information seeking, the presence of monitoring behaviours, and of interpersonal sources of information. However, alternate theories may need to be explored as the role of institutional information sources in the lives of PHAs doesn’t match the theoretical predication and the “gate keeper” concept doesn’t capture a significant portion of that role in rural HIV/AIDS information exchange.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.013
Science and technology studies0.0130.013
Scholarly communication0.0080.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicInformation Retrieval and Search BehaviorFrench-language works237,207