MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147461975 · doi:10.1017/s0021932010000027

RELIGION, HIV/AIDS AND SEXUAL RISK-TAKING AMONG MEN IN GHANA

2010· article· en· W2147461975 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Obeng Gyimah, Eric Y. Tenkorang, Baffour K. Takyi, Jones Adjei, Gabriel B. Fosu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Biosocial Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustenanceFocus groupHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Socioeconomic statusDeveloping countryDemographyPsychologyReproductive healthPopulationGender studiesSocial psychologySociologySocioeconomicsMedicinePolitical scienceEconomic growthFamily medicineEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although a growing body of research has linked religious involvement with HIV/AIDS protective behaviour in Africa, the focus has mainly been on women. Given the patriarchal nature of African culture, this paper argues for the inclusion of men, a critical group whose sexual behaviours have increasingly been linked to the spread and sustenance of the virus in the region. Drawing on different theoretical discourses and using data from the 2003 Ghana Demographic and Health Survey, this paper examines how religious affiliation influences men's risky sexual behaviours. While the results from the bivariate analysis suggested that Muslims and Traditionalists were significantly less likely to engage in risky sexual behaviour compared with Christians, those differences disappeared once socioeconomic variables were controlled, rendering support for the selectivity thesis. This finding could benefit programmatic and policy formulation regarding AIDS prevention in Ghana.

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)0.000
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.370 · 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

Citations93
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Biosocial ScienceSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207