Sexual transmission‐risk behaviour among <scp>HIV</scp>‐positive persons: a multisite study using social action theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Sexual risk behaviour was explored and described using Social Action Theory. BACKGROUND: The sexual transmission of HIV is complex and multi-factorial. Social Action Theory provides a framework for viewing self-regulation of modifiable behaviour such as condom use. Condom use is viewed within the context of social interaction and interdependence. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. METHODS: Self-report questionnaire administered to adults living with HIV/AIDS, recruited from clinics, service organizations and by active outreach, between 2010 - 2011. FINDINGS: Having multiple sex partners with inconsistent condom use during a 3-month recall period was associated with being male, younger age, having more years of education,substance use frequency and men having sex with men being a mode of acquiring HIV. In addition, lower self-efficacy for condom use scores were associated with having multiple sex partners and inconsistent condom use. CONCLUSION: Social Action Theory provided a framework for organizing data from an international sample of seropositive persons. Interventions for sexually active, younger, HIV positive men who have sex with men, that strengthen perceived efficacy for condom use, and reduce the frequency of substance use, may contribute to reducing HIV-transmission risk.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".