Social Support Moderates the Relationship Between Gay Community Integration and Sexual Risk Behavior Among Gay Male 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
Few studies of partnered gay men consider the social context within which sexual behaviors occur or investigate positive aspects of the social environment that may offset factors that are related to risky sexual behaviors. Fewer still include assessment of both individuals making up couples. Using an ecological framework and an actor-partner multilevel analysis approach, the authors investigate how three dimensions of gay community integration are related to individual sexual risk behavior among 108 individuals in 54 couples. They then investigate how general social support and partner-provided, HIV-specific social support moderate these relationships. An individual's gay community social engagement and general social support interact to predict sexual risk behavior, such that the apparent protective effect of social support is more pronounced among those with less social engagement. The association between partner-reported general social support and safer sexual behaviors is more pronounced among those whose partners disclose their gay identity to more people.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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