NEGOTIATION FOR SAFER SEX AMONG MARRIED WOMEN IN CAMBODIA: THE ROLE OF WOMEN'S AUTONOMY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Negotiating safer sex among married women has been identified as an important determinant of vulnerability or resilience to new HIV infections. Using the Cambodia Demographic and Health Survey data of 2010, this paper examined negotiation for safer sex among 11,218 married women in the context of Cambodia's highly touted reduction in HIV/AIDS prevalence. The results from a complementary log-log regression model indicate that wealthier and highly educated married women were more likely to report that they can refuse sexual intercourse and ask their husbands to use a condom. Interestingly, while women who were fully involved in decision-making on their own health care were 19% more likely to refuse sex, they were 14% less likely to be able to ask their husbands to use a condom, compared with their counterparts who were not involved in this decision-making. Women who were partially involved in decision-making on family visits were 17% less likely to be able to ask their husbands to use a condom compared with those who were not involved. In this context, involvement in decision-making may have translated into trust and risk compensation. Those who believed in HIV transmission myths were less likely to negotiate safer sex relative to their counterparts who did not hold such myths to be true. Women's ability to negotiate for safer sex is, therefore, a function of their autonomy in terms of their full participation in decision-making in health care, household expenditure and mobility. Policy implications of the capacity of women to negotiate for safer sex are delineated.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".