Grupos focales de discusión: estrategia para la investigación sobre salud sexual con adolescentes con experiencia de vida en calle en Medellín, Colombia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to show the importance of discussion focus groups as a methodological strategy for the compilation of information in studies with institutionalized adolescents who have lived on the streets. At the same time, it aims to show the value of this technique in approaching the topic of sexual health with this population, since it allows for flexible and reflexive researcher-participant and participant-participant interaction. The value of this methodological strategy is supported in this article through accounts and results obtained during the implementation of a study conducted with institutionalized adolescents between 2013 and 2014. We expect these results will reduce the beliefs of professionals regarding the limitations of the strategy to address issues related to the sexual health of this type of population. The results are divided into four categories: knowledge and perceptions of HIV and STIs, sexual and reproductive health (SRH), the language used in SRH, and access to and use of information and communications technology (ICT). Thus, this paper clearly shows the contribution and potential of the strategy for addressing the issue, approaching and interacting with adolescents who have lived on the street.
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".