Correctional Officers' Intention Of Accepting Or Refusing To Make HIV Preventive Tools Accessible To Inmates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to identify the factors which explain correctional officers' intention of accepting or refusing to make HIV preventive tools (condoms, bleach, tattooing equipment, and syringes) accessible to inmates. A total of 957 officers completed a questionnaire that took into account determinants from several social-cognitive behavior theories. The results indicated that only 21.4% of officers were favorable toward making accessible all of the preventive tools. The theoretical model explained 87% of the intention variance, p < .0001. Self-efficacy (beta = .35), personal normative belief (beta = .29), social determinants (beta = .21) and the affective dimension of attitude (beta = .19) were significant determinants. Moreover, officers with a high level of intention differed from those with a low level of intention on several points of the theoretical model. In conclusion, the results clearly indicated that several difficulties must be overcome before HIV preventive tools as a whole can be made accessible to inmates.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it