Sexual practices and sex-seeking behaviours among East and Southeast Asian men who have sex with men in Toronto: Implications for HIV prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored sexual practices and sex-seeking behaviours in a sample of 222 East and Southeast Asian men recruited through two gay venues. Over half of the respondents reported having a current regular partner; the rate of unprotected anal sex with their regular partner was high (45.1%). Among all respondents, 74.8% (166) reported having casual sex with an average of 16 partners in the previous six months; 26.5% of these 166 respondents reported unprotected anal sex with their casual partners. Respondents used multiple venues to seek sex, but bathhouses and the internet were most commonly cited. Bivariate analysis demonstrated that respondents who sought men for sex via both bathhouses and the internet in the past six months were most likely to have had a casual partner, to have had unprotected anal sex with a casual partner, and to have had prior HIV and STI testing. In comparison to respondents who used only bathhouses to seek sex, respondents who used only the internet had fewer casual partners but were more likely to have unprotected anal sex with a casual partner. Given these findings, additional research is needed to further explore the individual and structural factors that shape the condom use behaviour of these sub-populations. HIV prevention efforts must include culturally relevant information about HIV and STI transmission to promote condom use. It is also critical to develop culturally and linguistically appropriate online prevention education for Asian MSM who seek sex primarily through the internet.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".