MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014567169 · doi:10.1258/ijsa.2010.010192

High-risk sex among mobile female sex workers in the context of jatras (religious festivals) in Karnataka, India

2010· article· en· W2014567169 on OpenAlexaff
Shiva S. Halli, Raluca Buzdugan, Stephen Moses, James Blanchard, Anrudh K. Jain, Ravi Verma, Niranjan Saggurti

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of STD & AIDS · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCondomMedicineResidenceOutreachFemale sexContext (archaeology)Sex workSex workersDemographyEnvironmental healthMultivariate analysisVulnerability (computing)PopulationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)SocioeconomicsGeographyFamily medicineSyphilisSociologyEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Jatras (religious festivals) represent venues for female sex workers (FSWs) to meet potential clients in an environment of anonymity. Data from a survey conducted among 1499 mobile FSWs in Karnataka, India were analysed using bivariate and multivariate analysis. Overall, 31% of mobile FSWs reported attending jatras in the previous year. Women who sold sex at jatras tended to practice sex work in public places, in their own homes or on highways. Jatra attendees reported lower condom use with their last commercial sexual partners at their usual places of sex work. Jatra-related mobility was a significant predictor of non-condom use at their usual place of residence, after controlling for sociodemographic, sex work-related, HIV vulnerability and programme exposure variables. Moreover, only 13% of FSWs used condoms consistently at jatras. Condom availability and accessibility at jatras should be a priority for HIV prevention programmes, and such programmes should make efforts to introduce outreach activities at jatras.

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)0.002
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 score0.235
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations20
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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