Evaluation of STD/HIV/AIDS peer-education and danger: a local perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An evaluation of peer-education projects with sex workers, men who have sex with men and marginalized adolescents, was introduced in a remote region of Brazil. The context of varied limits of predictability made it difficult to conduct inquiry. To go beyond available epidemiological surveys and questionnaires on sexual behavior, a self-evaluation aimed at increasing pragmatic knowledge about prevention in a challenging socio-political context. During five-months, a participatory-action research explored participant observation; individual and collective exchanges with users, peer-educators, coordinators, administrators, politicians and regional health professionals. Collective understanding of peer-education in prostitution zones underlines the reality of unforeseen social repercussions and confluence/divergence of multiple actors' perspectives. It identifies meaningful dimensions at a community-level, such as the collective history and dangerous working conditions. Nurses face complex struggles and negotiations over multiple actors in their practice. This study suggests that nurses have a role to play in the conceptualization of participatory evaluation. It also underlines the threats to their physical and social safety, which they might share with peer-educators.
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 | 0.026 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".