MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2001305920 · doi:10.1177/0022146510395026

Community and Drug Use among Gay Men

2011· article· en· W2001305920 on OpenAlexaff
Richard M. Carpiano, Brian C. Kelly, Adam Easterbrook, Jeffrey T. Parsons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health and Social Behavior · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationOddsPsychologyHomosexualitySocial network (sociolinguistics)Social psychologyDemographyGerontologySociologyGender studiesMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gay neighborhoods serve as vital places for gay men's socializing, yet few studies have examined their contributions to gay men's health-either directly or indirectly via residents' social networks. Drawing from theoretical perspectives on community and networks, we test hypotheses concerning whether gay neighborhoods and social network factors are associated with patterns of recent illicit drug use among a sample of 740 urban gay men from New York City. Higher odds of drug use were observed among individuals who resided in gay neighborhoods, had networks composed predominantly of other gay men, and had increased socialization with gay men. Network factors did not mediate associations between gay neighborhoods and drug use. These findings highlight the need to better contextualize the health risks faced by gay men by accounting for both neighborhood and network structures.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations124
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health and Social BehaviorSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207