MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122297494 · doi:10.2174/1874613601105010067

Impact of HIV/AIDS on Social Relationships in Rural China

2011· article· en· W2122297494 on OpenAlexaff
Yurong Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open AIDS Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersEuropean CommissionWorld Health Organization
KeywordsChinaLogistic regressionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineIntervention (counseling)Environmental healthGerontologySocial supportRural areaDemographyPsychologyImmunologyPolitical scienceSociologySocial psychologyNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social support promotes greater medical compliance, better immune system functioning and slows the progress of HIV/AIDS. One in every 50 People Living With HIV/AIDS (PLWHA) is Chinese, yet little is known about the impact of HIV/AIDS on social relationships in China. This study compares the characteristics of those who report that HIV/AIDS had a substantial impact versus a modest impact on their social relationships. We obtained data from a survey of 866 PLWHA in rural China, which was conducted in 2006-2007 in the three Chinese provinces with the highest prevalence of HIV/AIDS. Chi-square test and multiple logistic regression were performed. The analysis shows that PLWHA who had full-blown AIDS (OR= 1.53; 95% CI=1.09-2.13) and those who were poor (OR=2.19; 95% CI=1.52-3.16) reported greater impact on their social relationships. The results lay a solid foundation for designing effective policy initiatives and intervention programs aimed at alleviating the impact of HIV/AIDS on social relationships and improving the quality of life of PLWHA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open AIDS JournalSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207