MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2062903658 · doi:10.1080/13698570902912684

HIV/AIDS risk and worry in Northern Kenya

2009· article· en· W2062903658 on OpenAlexaff
Eric Abella Roth, Elizabeth Ngugi, Masako Fujita

Bibliographic record

VenueHealth Risk & Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNature
KeywordsWorryPopulationLogistic regressionPsychologyDemographyClinical psychologySocial psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthPsychiatryAnxietySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Data from a 2003 survey of sexual behaviour (n = 400) conducted in the Ariaal community of Karare, Marsabit District, northern Kenya, were used to delineate patterns of risk and worry about contracting HIV/AIDS. Despite widespread reporting of high-risk sexual behaviours (including multiple partners, concurrency, sexual mixing and not using condoms) by survey participants, logistic regression analysis found only one statistically significant positive association between these behaviours and self-assessment of being at high risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. In contrast, log-linear analysis of worry patterns found highly significant relationships between self-assessment of high risk of HIV/AIDS and worry about one's partner's sexual behaviour. These findings indicate that in relation to contracting HIV/AIDS currently Ariaal are more concerned about the sexual behaviour of others, rather than their own behaviour. More generally, results point to the potential for combining concepts of worry with risk assessment in HIV/AIDS research to generate insights into how both concepts are linked to individual, dyadic and population-level factors within specific cultural settings.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.068
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.409
Teacher spread0.358 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHealth Risk & SocietySame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207