MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999292204 · doi:10.1258/0956462054679179

The impact of syphilis mass treatment one year later: self-reported behaviour change among participants

2005· article· en· W1999292204 on OpenAlexaff
Michael L. Rekart, Thomas Wong, Elsie Wong, Kylie Hutchinson, Gina Ogilvie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of STD & AIDS · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsHealth CanadaBC Centre for Disease ControlUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSyphilisCondomDemographyPsychological interventionMen who have sex with menReferralSexually transmitted diseaseIncidence (geometry)ChlamydiaCross-sectional studyHealth educationFamily medicinePublic healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychiatryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2000, syphilis mass treatment using oral azithromycin was delivered to at-risk British Columbians during a sex trade-related outbreak. The initiative included education, counselling and referral. This cross-sectional, observational study examines knowledge, attitudes and self-reported behaviour after one year among mass treatment participants compared with eligible non-participants. Participants self-reported positive changes: reduction in sexual partners overall (P=0.001) and for sex workers (P<0.01), decrease in unprotected oral sex (P=0.03), knowledge of asymptomatic syphilis (P=0.02), positive attitudes to mass treatment (P=0.02) and to the street nurses (P=0.01). Increased awareness was associated with increased condom use for vaginal sex overall (P=0.02) and for sex workers (P=0.03) and increased condom use for oral sex (P=0.05). There was no difference in syphilis incidence. Syphilis outbreak interventions that include education, support and referral can result in long-term positive behaviour changes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.055
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of STD & AIDSSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207