MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2413262117 · doi:10.1111/nin.12139

<i>Breeding</i> new forms of life: a critical reflection on extreme variances of bareback sex

2016· article· en· W2413262117 on OpenAlexaff
Chad Hammond, Dave Holmes, Mathieu Mercier

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Inquiry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetaphorResistance (ecology)QueerFeelingSociologyMen who have sex with menGender studiesTransgressiveSocial psychologyPsychologyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)BiologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many men who have sex with men (MSM) express feeling marginalized by discourses within public health and sexual health nursing that determine bareback sex is deviant and unsafe. Their resistance to risk-based discourses can be seen within radical sex practices such as deliberately becoming-infected with HIV (bug-chasing) and breeding-infection (gift-giving). The metaphors of bug-chasing and gift-giving, particularly those spread across global online spaces, can influence the sexual experiences and practices of MSM. A metaphor analysis was conducted of Internet forums discussing HIV chasing and gifting metaphors, and showed a variety of discursive meanings, tactics and effects to the radical sex practice. A radical research approach was used to explore the processes of becoming-infected and breeding-infection as determinant steps in the symbolic resistance of risk-based discourses, as well as the creation of new forms of life and community among MSM. Our analyses demonstrate how the gifting/chasing metaphors express MSM's marginalization as well as their lines of flight from having their practices captured within public health discourses. We hope to offer alternative nursing approaches for thinking through and engaging with transgressive and queer sexual practices.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.163
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNursing InquirySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207