Preventive HIV Vaccine Acceptability and Behavioral Risk Compensation among a Random Sample of High‐Risk Adults in Los Angeles (LA VOICES)
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
OBJECTIVE: To assess HIV vaccine acceptability among high-risk adults in Los Angeles. STUDY SETTING: Sexually transmitted disease clinics, needle/syringe exchange programs, Latino community health/HIV prevention programs. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey using conjoint analysis. Participants were randomly selected using three-stage probability sampling. DATA COLLECTION: Sixty-minute structured interviews. Participants rated acceptability of eight hypothetical vaccines, each with seven dichotomous attributes, and reported post-vaccination risk behavior intentions. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Participants (n=1164; 55.7 percent male, 82.4 percent ethnic minority, mean age=37.4 years) rated HIV vaccine acceptability from 28.4 to 88.6; mean=54.5 (SD=18.8; 100-point scale). Efficacy had the greatest impact on acceptability, followed by side effects and out-of-pocket cost. Ten percent would decrease condom use after vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support development of social marketing interventions to increase acceptability of "partial efficacy" vaccines, behavioral interventions to mitigate risk compensation, and targeted cost subsidies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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