Criminal prosecution of a male partner for sexual transmission of infectious diseases: the views of educated people living in Togo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the views of educated people in Togo on the acceptability of criminal prosecution of a male partner for sexual transmission of infectious diseases (STIDs) to his female partner. METHODS: 199 adults living in Kara, Togo judged acceptability of criminal prosecution for STID in 45 scenarios composed of combinations of five factors: (a) severity of disease; (b) awareness and communication of one's serological status; (c) partners' marital status; (d) number of sexual partners the female partner has and (e) male partner's subsequent attitude (supportive or not). RESULTS: Acceptability was lower (a) when the male partner decided to take care of his female partner he had infected than when he decided to leave, (b) when both partners were informed but decided not to take precautions than when none of them was informed or when only the male partner was informed and (c) when the female partner has had several male sexual partners than when she has had only one. Two qualitatively different views were identified. For 66% of participants, when the male partner accepts to take care of his partner, he should not be sued, except when he did not disclose his serological status. For 34%, when both partners were informed, the male partner should not be sued, irrespective of other circumstances. CONCLUSIONS: Regarding criminal prosecution for STID, most people in the sample endorsed the position of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS that urges governments not to apply criminal law to cases where sexual partners disclosed their status or were not informed of it.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".