MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170002421 · doi:10.1521/aeap.15.7.561.24048

HIV Risk Behavior History Of Prison Inmates In Hungary

2003· article· en· W2170002421 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. Anna Gyarmathy, Alan Neaigus, Szabolcs Számadó

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Education and Prevention · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFogarty International Center
KeywordsPrisonPopulationMedicinePsychological interventionQuarter (Canadian coin)Sex workDemographyIntervention (counseling)Sexually transmitted diseaseHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychiatryGerontologyPsychologyEnvironmental healthSyphilisFamily medicineCriminologySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of an intervention in correctional facilities in Hungary, we conducted research on AIDS-related attitudes and the HIV risk behavior history of 551 male and 81 female inmates to assess needs for and to tailor AIDS education programs. Although lifetime injection drug use was uncommon (8% of men, 3% of women), many Hungarian inmates had engaged in unprotected sex and had had high-risk sex partners: a quarter of men had primary partners who sold sex, about half of them had sex with female prostitutes, 13% of women had worked as prostitutes, and 9% of all inmates indicated having had sex in prison. Because many prison inmates may constitute a potential bridge population for the sexual transmission of HIV between the general population and high-risk populations, interventions among prison inmates may provide an opportunity to reach an at-risk population and to prevent the wider spread of sexually transmitted HIV.

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)0.001
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.314 · 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

Citations17
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Education and PreventionSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207