Will sexual risk behaviour increase after being vaccinated for AIDS?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The question of whether people will engage in greater levels of HIV-associated risk behaviour after receiving an AIDS vaccine has not been sufficiently investigated. Three objectives were: (1) assess the likelihood that people will engage in greater levels of HIV-risk behaviour after receiving an AIDS vaccine; (2) determine the association of increases with vaccination intent; and (3) identify differences between people who would and would not increase their HIV-risk behaviour after vaccination.A cross-sectional survey was conducted of 278 adults from three populations: gay men, African-American women, and persons who used illicit drugs. Nearly one-quarter of the sample indicated a likelihood that their HIV-risk behaviour would increase after vaccination. This increase was positively associated (r = 0.24) with increased intent to be vaccinated. Previous worry about having HIV (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] = 3.4, P = 0.004), being 32 years of age or older (AOR = 2.9, P = 0.0007), and having less than a high school education (AOR = 2.3, P = 0.027) were each associated with a post-vaccination increase in HIV risk. With the seemingly real potential for increased HIV-risk behaviours after being vaccinated against AIDS, intervention studies are warranted to identify strategies with potential to minimize this phenomenon.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".