Sexual Orientation Identification of Men who Have Sex with Men in Public Settings in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study attempts to determine how men who have sex with men (MSM) identify in terms of their sexual orientation. The sexual identity of MSM has important implications for the spread of HIV. The literature suggests that gay or bisexual identifying MSM are more likely to practice safer sex than heterosexually-identified MSM. A significant number of the MSM in public settings, such as parks, are believed to be heterosexual identifying. MSM in bathhouses are presumed to be gay or bisexual identifying. Parks have been the focus of safer sex outreach efforts targeted towards heterosexually-identified MSM. Sexual orientation self-identification was ascertained from park and bathhouse users via one-on-one interactions with outreach workers from 1996 to 1998. Chi-square analysis revealed no significant difference in the expressed sexual orientation of bath and park users, with both populations consisting mostly of gay-identified men. Heterosexually-identified MSM are not found in significant numbers in public settings. The current micro educational approach used to target these men may not be cost-effective. Alternative strategies 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".