Cruising for sex: Sexual risk behaviours and HIV testing of men who cruise, inside and outwith public sex environments (PSE)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes sexual risk behaviours and HIV testing amongst men who cruise an urban public sex environment (PSE) in southern England. Data were collated using a cross-sectional survey (response rate = 56%; n=216), sampling men from directly within the PSE. As such, this represents the first peer-review study generalizable to the wider population of urban PSE users. The current sample reflect a highly sexually active population, almost one-third (31%) reported over 50 sex partners in the last year. However, just one-quarter (26%) reported unprotected anal intercourse (UAI) with at least one partner outside of a 'safer sexual strategy'. Almost 1 in 12 (7%) reported UAI within the PSE. Over two-thirds (71%) had had a named HIV test of whom 16% had tested HIV positive. Just one-third (34%) of negative/untested PSE users had tested within the previous two years. Positive men were significantly more likely to report unsafe sex within the PSE in the last year. PSE users report lower levels of UAI than men in the local gay community but higher HIV prevalence. PSE-based UAI remains an HIV (re)infection risk. In concert, these findings suggest the importance of in situ targeted health promotion to prevent PSE-based risks.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".