MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2046703167 · doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.4.445

The role of sexual arousal and sexual partner characteristics in HIV+ MSM's intentions to engage in unprotected sexual intercourse.

2008· article· en· W2046703167 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Shuper, William A. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Psychology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerostatusCondomMen who have sex with menPsychologySexual arousalPsychological interventionSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologySex partnersUnsafe SexAttractivenessClinical psychologyHuman sexualityHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)ArousalMedicineViral loadPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of sexual arousal and sexual partner characteristics as determinants of HIV+ men who have sex with men's (MSM) intentions to engage in unprotected sex. DESIGN: In a computer-based controlled experiment, 67 HIV+ MSM underwent a sexual arousal manipulation and indicated their intentions to engage in unprotected sex with hypothetical partners who differed in terms of HIV serostatus, physical attractiveness, relationship type, and preference for condom use. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Computer-delivered questions assessed HIV+ MSM's intentions to engage in various sexual acts with each hypothetical partner. RESULTS: As predicted, sexually aroused HIV+ MSM indicated stronger intentions to engage in unprotected sex than nonaroused HIV+ MSM; and having a partner who was attractive, HIV+, long term, or who preferred not to use condoms, also led to riskier intentions. Several significant interactions among these factors were found, which were generally consistent with predictions and with theory and research on cognitive processing and decision making. CONCLUSIONS: These findings have implications for understanding risky sexual behavior among HIV+ individuals and for the development of interventions to reduce this risk.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.429
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations35
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth PsychologySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207