“It's a Quick Way to Get What You Want”: A Formative Exploration of HIV Risk Among Urban Massachusetts Men Who Have Sex with Men Who Attend Sex Parties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Community-based studies with men who have sex with men (MSM) suggest that between 8% and 25% of MSM have met recent male sexual partners at private sex parties. Little is known about HIV sexual risk behaviors of MSM who attend sex parties and whether risk reduction interventions can be delivered in this setting. In 2008, 40 MSM who reported attending and/or hosting sex parties in Massachusetts in the past 12 months completed a qualitative interview and quantitative assessment. Participants reported attending a mean number of 10 sex parties in Massachusetts in the past 12 months. A significant percentage (43%) reported also hosting sex parties. Participants had made sexual partner connections across multiple venues, including public cruising areas, bars/clubs, and the Internet. At the most recent sex party attended, the majority had used alcohol (58%) and/or drugs (50%), and one quarter (25%) put themselves at risk of acquiring or transmitting HIV or other sexually transmitted infections (STIs) by having unprotected anal sex with a mean number of three serodiscordant male sex partners. Although many participants perceived that communicating about sexual health in the sex party context would “ruin the mood,” the majority (80%) considered some form of HIV prevention at sex parties to be appropriate and necessary, as well as acceptable. Nonintrusive prevention and education activities were especially endorsed (i.e., condoms, lubricants, and coupons for free HIV/STI testing). The majority of participants (75%) expressed some interest in “safer sex” parties. MSM attending sex parties appear to be a subpopulation at high risk for HIV and STI acquisition and transmission. Risk reduction interventions responsive to the needs of MSM who attend sex parties are warranted.
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 | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".