<scp>HIV</scp> stigma and the experiences of young men with voluntary and routine <scp>HIV</scp> testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As routine HIV testing approaches are implemented to enhance participation rates in HIV testing, it is often widely believed that these approaches are socially and ethically justifiable given the underlying assumption that these practices will result in the widespread reduction of HIV-related stigma. Nonetheless, a variety of empirical and theoretical gaps on how HIV testing practices may impact on HIV stigma remain, raising questions about the social underpinnings of the public health rationale. We draw on 50 interviews with 18-24 year-old men to determine how HIV-related stigma is experienced differentially across subgroups of young men in relation to both voluntary and routine testing practices. The men's experiences with routine testing highlight how (mis)interpretations of universal, routine testing practices may serve to (unintentionally) burden disadvantaged subgroups of men; however, when these practices are adequately explicated, the universal dimension of a routine offer greatly diminished these concerns. These findings also show that, under the right conditions, a routine offer can provide transformative opportunities for individuals to reconceptualise their expectations over HIV and HIV-related stigma.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".