The Exclusionary Circle Game: A Tool to Promote Critical Dialogue About HIV Stigma and Social Justice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Exclusionary Circle Game was a learning tool developed for an intervention study to address stigma associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and social exclusion. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of The Exclusionary Circle Game were to enhance collective resonance and empathy, promote critical reflection and dialogue, and motivate collective action to address social exclusion. METHODS: The game began with all participants being inside a circle. Each participant was randomly given one color-coded card. Each card color represented a character with a specific lived experience associated with racism, patriarchy, homophobia, transphobia, HIV stigma, and so on. Participants holding a marginalized status card were asked to leave the circle in sequence and go to designated spaces. Eventually, only one half of the participants were left in the circle. Participants then debriefed about their experiences within the entire group. CONCLUSIONS: The game has been used, beyond the intervention study, at research conferences with positive feedback. In this article, we detail the processes, strengths, and possibility of using this game for empowerment education.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".