MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2219788722 · doi:10.1080/00981389.2015.1081665

“Why are you pregnant? What were you thinking?”: How women navigate experiences of HIV-related stigma in medical settings during pregnancy and birth

2015· article· en· W2219788722 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Work in Health Care · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario HIV Treatment Network
KeywordsPregnancyPsychosocialStigma (botany)NarrativeHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Qualitative researchMedicineSocial stigmaPsychologyNursingFamily medicinePsychiatrySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having children is a growing reality for women living with HIV in Canada. It is imperative to understand and respond to women's unique experiences and psychosocial challenges during pregnancy and as mothers including HIV-related stigma. This qualitative study used a narrative methodological approach to understand women's experiences of HIV-related stigma as they navigate health services in pregnancy (n = 66) and early postpartum (n = 64). Narratives of women living with HIV expose the spaces where stigmatizing practices emerge as women seek perinatal care and support, as well as highlight the relationship between HIV-related stigma and disclosure, and the impact this has on women's pregnancy and birthing experiences.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.676

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.311 · 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