MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113536139 · doi:10.1080/13691050802183899

‘It's like the treasure’: beliefs associated with semen among young HIV‐positive and HIV‐negative gay men

2008· article· en· W2113536139 on OpenAlexaffabout
Arn Schilder, Treena Orchard, Christopher S. Buchner, Mary Lou Miller, Kim A. Fernandes, Robert S. Hogg, Steffanie A. Strathdee

Bibliographic record

VenueCulture Health & Sexuality · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityVancouver Coastal HealthWestern UniversitySt. Paul's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSerostatusCondomMasculinityPsychologyHomosexualityHuman sexualityDemographyMedicineSocial psychologyDevelopmental psychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Gender studiesImmunologySociologyViral load

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines cultural and social meanings associated with semen, along with related issues of unprotected receptive anal intercourse, HIV seroconversion, treatment optimism and viraemia. The findings are derived from qualitative interviews conducted with 12 HIV-positive young gay men and 12 HIV-negative counterparts who participated in a prospective cohort study in Vancouver, Canada. Focussing on the narratives of young gay men, the analysis reveals a diverse range of knowledge, values and functions of semen, especially in relation to its exchange. Beliefs about semen appeared to differ by HIV serostatus and were linked with intimacy, identity and pleasure, particularly among the HIV-positive men. Against dominant representations of semen in relation to issues of loss, anxiety and infertility, this unique study sheds much needed light on its role within the cultural construction of sexuality among gay men. As such, these narratives are of direct importance to primary and secondary HIV prevention, including condom promotion and the development of rectal microbicides.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.809
Threshold uncertainty score0.830

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations28
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCulture Health & SexualitySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207