LBP-1.03 “No one was there to care for us” Ashraya's response to its members' needs in terms of care and support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Sex workers (SWs) have been identified as a “high-risk group” and considerable effort has been invested in promoting “safer sex” among this group. However, their specific concerns and identities vanish in broader public health policy discussions related to treatment and particularly care. Ashodaya Samithi, a SWs organisation based in Mysore, Karnataka, has been providing extensive care and support (C&S) services to SWs and “non-SWs” living with HIV through their sub-wing organisation, Ashraya, since 2008. Considering the enduring stigma attached to SWs, what motivates individuals to seek health services from Ashraya? Methods 40 in-depth interviews (including 10 with non-SWs) were conducted with Ashraya members in 2011 to explore how Ashraya responds to the needs of its members in terms of C&S. Content analysis of the transcripts was completed to sort out themes. Results Analysis shows that in spite of scarce resources, the accessibility, effective outreach efforts, and commitment and reliability of Ashraya's volunteers are major components of its growing popularity. Conclusions In the near-absence of non-discriminatory, affordable C&S for people living with HIV/AIDS, Ashraya offers much needed relief to its members. The potential role of SWs community-based organisations in providing C&S, which goes beyond safer sex promotion, needs to be accounted for within national-level policy planning and in evaluating existing programs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.096 | 0.017 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".