A comparison of the determinants of safe injecting and condom use among injecting drug users
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A sample of 582 injecting drug users were interviewed as part of an evaluation of an AIDS prevention programme for drug users. This paper examines the biographic and predispositional determinants of five HIV preventive behaviours--equipment sharing (not receiving and not giving) and and condom use (with regular partners, casual partners and sex clients). A two-stage sequential approach was adopted for a logistic regression analysis. Initially, to model each of the five preventive behaviours, biographical and drug use variables were entered. In a second set of models, behavioural predisposition factors were included. Age, drug use and prison experience correlate with variables in both models, although not consistently in the same direction. While a predisposition to reject sharing correlates with safer rejecting and condom use, the predisposition to safer sex only correlates with condom use. Needle exchange programmes that only target the individual would seem to be inadequate. To enhance targeted interventions changes in public and agency policy that create a social environment conductive to behaviour change are required.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".