“SO FAR IT’S BEEN CHOOSING WHICH SIDE EFFECTS I WANT OR I CAN DEAL WITH”: A GROUNDED THEORY OF THE HIV TREATMENT SIDE EFFECTS AMONG PEOPLE LIVING WITH HIV
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: we present the findings of a grounded theory study designed to gain a critical understanding of the experience of side effects of treatment for HIV. Method: this study was undertaken in Canada’s capital region with 50 participants through a questionnaire. Data analysis began with the initial line-by-line coding of key interviews. After it were categorized. Results: three main categories emerged from the data: the side effects, the experience, and the connections. Conclusion: the first category suggests that we need to change how we think about side effects in order to take into account the context in which they are experienced as well as the types and nature of side effects. The second category puts forward the idea that the experience of side effects is composed of three interrelated processes: becoming with, living with, and dealing with. Finally, the third category points to new connections that are formed with people, things and systems in the presence of side effects.Descriptors: Adverse Effects; Antiretroviral; ART; Grounded Theory; HIV; Side Effects; Toxicity.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it