Pieces of the Puzzle: Making HIV Prevention Education and Services "Fit" Within the Context of Sex Trade Workers' Needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The issue of increasing HIV infection rates among women in Canada is cause for concern. More specifically the causes of HIV infection among women also highlight the need to better explicate the connection between womens risk for HIV infection and social factors. Health Canadas population health framework illustrates the importance of the social determinants upon peoples health status. Yet there is little evidence available that documents womens voices describing the impact of these social determinants upon their experience of HIV. Without careful consideration of this issue many HIV prevention programs will continue to overlook the complex factors that contribute to HIV infection among women in Canada (UNAIDS). Women working in the sex trade are among the most vulnerable to HIV infection. Thus in 2003 Planned Parenthood Metro Clinic in Halifax conducted two focus groups with 14 women in the sex trade with the intent of examining the aforementioned issues. While many themes emerged this article will focus on the theme of and the ways in which support or the lack thereof from grassroots community agencies health-related organizations from each other and even their clients influences sex workers attempts to access HIV prevention education and services and more consistently practice safer sex. (excerpt)
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".