Gendered HIV risk patterns among polygynous sero-discordant couples in Uganda
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stable serodiscordant relationships and sexual concurrency are pathways that contribute to the HIV epidemic in sub-Saharan Africa. However whether polygyny imparts the same risks as informal concurrent relationships remains an open research question. Using data collected at enrollment from a cohort study of sero-discordant couples, this analysis investigates how polygynous relationships differ from those involving only a single female spouse and whether men involved in polygynous partnerships are more likely to report HIV-risk behaviour than those in single spouse partnerships. Of 444 enrolled couples, 111 (25%) were polygynous and 333 (75%) were single-spouse partnerships. We found that polygynous men were more likely to report controlling sexual decision-making and to report any unprotected sex with unknown sero-status partner. After controlling for potential confounders, polygynous men were still more likely to report unprotected sex with an unknown sero-status partner. In this sample of sero-discordant couples we found indication of excess HIV-risk behaviour among men involved in polygynous relationships.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".