MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017621395 · doi:10.1080/10538720.2010.491745

Men Who Specifically Seek Unprotected Sex Partners via the Internet: Whose Profiles Are the Most Searched for by Other Site Users?

2010· article· en· W2017621395 on OpenAlexaff
Hugh Klein

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSexuality, Behavior, and Technology
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsMen who have sex with menAnal sexDemographyAnal intercourseSex partnersUnsafe SexPsychologyCondomResidenceSexual behaviorIntervention (counseling)MedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GerontologySocial psychologyFamily medicineSyphilisPsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Men who have sex with men (MSM) account for the largest number of persons diagnosed with AIDS in the United States, with higher than-average rates of drug use and unprotected sex being cited as the principal reasons underlying their high rates of HIV infection. Recent evidence has suggested that the use of Web sites specifically designed to promote unsafe sexual practices may be particularly common among MSM, therebyfostering their risky behaviots. In light of these findings, the present study which compares HIV risk behaviors sought by men whose profiles are among the most frequently brought up in searches to those whose profiles ate not aspopular with other site users, is based on a content analysis of 1,316 ads/profiles posted on one of the most popular MSM Web sites that specifically fosters unprotected sex. Ads/profiles were selected randomly based on the American ZIP code of residence. Data were collected between September 2006 and January 2007. Rates of advertised-for high-risk sexual behaviots were very high both for men whose profiles were among the most popular and those whose profiles were not, particularly for oral sex involving ejaculation into the mouth, anal sex involving ejaculation into the anus, multiple partner sex, and fetching. Analytical comparisons of these groups showed that the most searched for profiles weæ thosepromoting the highest levels ofrisky behaviors and the greatest propensity toward wanting to engage in high-risk activities. Ihe HIV intenention-related implications of these findings are discussed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.583
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Social ServicesSame topicSexuality, Behavior, and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207