MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079178579 · doi:10.1080/10508422.2014.950270

Structural and Interpersonal Benefits and Risks of Participation in HIV Research: Perspectives of Female Sex Workers in Guatemala

2014· article· en· W2079178579 on OpenAlexaff
Shira M. Goldenberg, Mónica Rivera Mindt, Teresita Rocha‐Jiménez, Kimberly C. Brouwer, Sonia Morales Miranda, Celia B. Fisher

Bibliographic record

VenueEthics & Behavior · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Institute on Drug Abuse
KeywordsStigma (botany)Sex workInterpersonal communicationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PopulationPsychologySocial psychologyMedicineEnvironmental healthFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explored perceived benefits and risks of participation in HIV research among 33 female sex workers in Tecun Uman, Guatemala. Stigma associated with sex work and HIV was a critical barrier to research participation. Key benefits of participation included access to HIV/STI prevention and testing, as well as positive and trusting relationships between sex workers and research teams. Control exerted by managers had mixed influences on perceived research risks and benefits. Results underscore the critical need for HIV investigators to develop population-tailored procedures to reduce stigma, engage managers, and reinforce trusting, reciprocal relationships between sex work communities and researchers.

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)0.004
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.068

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0000.004
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 head0.274
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEthics & BehaviorSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207