MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2521763992 · doi:10.11564/30-2-879

HIV/AIDS Perceptions and Vulnerability of Democratic Republic of Congo’s Refugees Living in Durban, South Africa

2016· article· en· W2521763992 on OpenAlexaff
Ganzamungu Zihindula, Kwaku Oppong Asante, Anna Meyer‐Weitz, Olagoke Akintola

Bibliographic record

VenueAfrican Population Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMigration, Health and Trauma
Canadian institutionsNipissing University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRefugeeFocus groupVulnerability (computing)Thematic analysisStigma (botany)Qualitative researchHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineGeographySociologyFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In South Africa, public perceptions of HIV/AIDS and people living with the virus have changed significantly but the refugees’ communities are mostly left out, creating a sense of fear and vulnerability. Using an exploratory qualitative approach, this study explores HIV/AIDS perception and vulnerability among refugees living in Durban, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. A semi-structured interview was conducted with 31 purposively sampled participants consisting of seven males and 24 females, aged 23 to 60 years. The results from thematic analysis revealed that low perceived risk of HIV infection, fear of knowing HIV status and its associated stigma, lack of HIV prevention information and inadequate knowledge about HIV were the factors that make refugees vulnerable to HIV infection. These findings underscore the need for culturally appropriate HIV treatment, awareness, and education and prevention programmes for refugees living in South Africa, with particular focus on gender and power dynamics within relationships

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.064

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAfrican Population StudiesSame topicMigration, Health and TraumaFrench-language works237,207