MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051358030 · doi:10.1521/aeap.2009.21.2.113

Informing Interventions: The Importance of Contextual Factors in the Prediction of Sexual Risk Behaviors among Transgender Women

2009· article· en· W2051358030 on OpenAlexaff
Jae Sevelius, Olga Grinstead Reznick, Stacey L. Hart, Sandy Schwarcz

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Education and Prevention · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and Policy
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsPsychological interventionPsychosocialTransgenderContext (archaeology)CondomMedicineClinical psychologyEthnic groupLogistic regressionGerontologyPsychologyPsychiatryHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Family medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study identifies contextual factors that predict risky sexual behavior among 153 transgender women who participated in a structured survey soliciting information on demographics, substance use, HIV status, risk behaviors, and other health and psychosocial factors. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine predictors. Inconsistent condom use was associated with stimulant use, unstable housing, and recruitment site. Substance use during sex was associated with unstable housing and stimulant use. Sex work was associated with hormone use, gender confirming surgeries, and younger age. When developing interventions for transgender women, it may be useful to focus on predictors of risk behavior rather than predictors of current HIV status (i.e., race/ethnicity as "risk factor"), because these behaviors are the target of interventions aimed at sexual risk reduction. Implications include potential benefits of context-specific interventions, structural interventions addressing barriers to housing and health care, and culturally specific substance abuse treatment programs for transgender women.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 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

Citations131
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Education and PreventionSame topicLGBTQ Health, Identity, and PolicyFrench-language works237,207