Sex and the community: the implications of neighbourhoods and social networks for sexual risk behaviours among urban gay men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gay neighbourhoods have historically served as vital places for gay socialising, and gay social networks are important sources of social support. Yet, few studies have examined the influence of these forms of community on sexual health. Informed by theoretical frameworks on neighbourhoods and networks, we employ multi-level modelling to test hypotheses concerning whether gay neighbourhoods and social network factors are associated with five sexual risk behaviours: receptive and insertive unprotected anal intercourse (UAI), barebacking identity, recent internet use for finding sexual partners, and 'Party and Play' (PnP). Our analyses of a community-based sample of gay men in New York City reveal little evidence for the direct effect of gay enclaves on sexual risk with the exception of PnP, which was more likely among gay enclave residents. Having a network composed predominantly of other gay men was associated with insertive UAI, PnP, and internet use for meeting sexual partners. This network type also mediated the association between gay neighbourhoods and higher odds of insertive UAI as well as PnP. Our findings highlight the sexual health implications of two important facets of gay community and, in doing so, indicate the need to better contextualise the sexual health risks faced by gay 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".