Twenty-five years later: A critical commentary on HIV awareness posters targeting women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This commentary provides selected observations from 25 years of research in Canadian HIV awareness campaign representation. Earlier research by Hunter (2004) found that HIV awareness posters targeting women focused on messages of fear, rather than presenting women as proactive about safer sex. Although there has been some improvement in recent years, we remain quite troubled by many of the Canadian HIV awareness posters targeting women. We demonstrate that there has been little progress in portraying women's agency in communicating safer sex options with their partners. Further, posters tend to reinforce the stigma associated with HIV, rather than depicting support, to minimize stigma. Canadian HIV awareness posters targeting women are in great contrast to the community-based HIV awareness posters targeting men who have sex with men, where taking control of sexual health and the importance of communication are reinforced. This commentary offers a critical appraisal on the minimal progress of Canadian HIV awareness posters targeting women throughout the years, and makes the case for developing HIV awareness poster campaigns which focus on prevention through communication, and support around stigma.
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 | 0.017 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.036 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".