A conceptual framework for understanding HIV risk behavior in the context of supporting fertility goals among HIV-serodiscordant couples
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
Integrated reproductive health services for people living with HIV must address their fertility intentions. For HIV-serodiscordant couples who want to conceive, attempted conception confers a substantial risk of HIV transmission to the uninfected partner. Behavioral and pharmacologic strategies may reduce HIV transmission risk among HIV-serodiscordant couples who seek to conceive. In order to develop effective pharmaco-behavioral programs, it is important to understand and address the contexts surrounding reproductive decision-making; perceived periconception HIV transmission risk; and periconception risk behaviors. We present a conceptual framework to describe the dynamics involved in periconception HIV risk behaviors in a South African setting. We adapt the Information-Motivation-Behavioral Skill Model of HIV Preventative Behavior to address the structural, individual and couple-level determinants of safer conception behavior. The framework is intended to identify factors that influence periconception HIV risk behavior among serodiscordant couples, and therefore to guide design and implementation of integrated and effective HIV, reproductive health and family planning services that support reproductive decision-making.
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 | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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