HIV vaccine acceptability and culturally appropriate dissemination among sexually diverse Aboriginal peoples in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored HIV vaccine acceptability and strategies for culturally appropriate dissemination among sexually diverse Aboriginal peoples in Canada, among those at highest HIV risk. We conducted four focus groups (n=23) with Aboriginal male (1) and female (1) service users, peer educators (1) and service providers (1) in Ontario, Canada. Transcripts were analysed with narrative thematic techniques from grounded theory, using NVivo. Participants' mean age was 37 years; about half (52%) were female, half (48%) Two-spirit or lesbian, gay or bisexual (LGB)-identified, 48% had a high-school education or less and 57% were unemployed. Vaccine uptake was motivated by community survival; however, negative HIV vaccine perceptions, historically based mistrust of government and healthcare institutions, perceived conflict between western and traditional medicine, sexual prejudice and AIDS stigma within and outside of Aboriginal communities, and vaccine cost may present formidable obstacles to HIV vaccine acceptability. Culturally appropriate processes of engagement emerged on individual levels (i.e., respect for self-determination, explanations in Native languages, use of modelling and traditional healing concepts) and community levels (i.e., leadership by Aboriginal HIV advocates and political representatives, identification of gatekeepers, and procuring Elders' endorsements). Building on cultural strengths and acknowledging the history and context of mistrust and social exclusion are fundamental to effective HIV vaccine dissemination.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".