MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967193348 · doi:10.1258/095646207782212234

Combining social network analysis and cluster analysis to identify sexual network types

2007· article· en· W1967193348 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Emily De Rubeis, John Wylie, D. William Cameron, Rama C. Nair, Ann Jolly

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of STD & AIDS · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsPublic Health Agency of CanadaUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalManitoba HealthUniversity of Ottawa
FundersOntario HIV Treatment NetworkHealth Research Board
KeywordsMedicineCluster (spacecraft)Social network analysisTransmission (telecommunications)Sexual behaviorSexually transmitted diseaseDemographySocial network (sociolinguistics)Environmental healthFamily medicineClinical psychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Social media

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increases in the rates of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) suggest that control programmes may not be effectively targeting diverse subpopulations. The objective of this investigation was to examine STI transmission within different groups, using both social network analysis and cluster analysis. Routine partner notification data were analysed from individuals diagnosed with, or exposed to an STI in Manitoba. Groups were identified and characterized. Three different clusters of groups were identified, comprised of demographically and clinically distinct individuals. A greater understanding of disease transmission patterns within these groups will aid in the development of targeted education and prevention programmes for all STIs.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.408 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of STD & AIDSSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207