MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050334190 · doi:10.1300/j041v14n03_03

A Qualitative Analysis of Cultural and Social Vulnerabilities to HIV Infection Among Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Asian Youth

2002· article· en· W2050334190 on OpenAlexaff
Maurice Kwong-Lai Poon, Peter Trung-Thu Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Social Services · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsAIDS Committee of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLesbianHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)HomosexualityGender studiesQualitative researchAsian americansSociologyPsychologyVirologyMedicineEthnic groupAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study reported here was undertaken to investigate cultural and social barriers that may increase HIV risk among gay, lesbian, and bisexual Asian youth. Interviews and focus groups were used to collect the data because they are well suited for this type of exploratory research. A total of 15 gay, lesbian, and bisexual Asian youth (7 females and 8 males) were recruited. Most of the participants (n = 11) self-identified as lesbian or gay. The mean age was 20.7, ranging from 17 to 24. Twelve participated in one of three focus groups while the remaining three were interviewed. Categories and themes identified include: (1) the lack of sex education at home, (2) homophobia in Asian families, (3) unresponsive health and social service providers, (4) lack of social support, (5) negative stereotypes, (6) ideal standards of beauty, and (7) negative perceptions of safer sex practices among Asian lesbian and bisexual women. HIV prevention strategies are suggested based on the recommendations and needs of our participants.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0110.006
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.458
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Gay & Lesbian Social ServicesSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207