A latent class analysis of sexual and romantic relationships among HIV-positive and HIV-negative gay and bisexual men in Vancouver
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Quantitative studies of gay and bisexual men have often reduced relational experiences to single dimensions and explored linkages with sexual risk behaviours. We sought to document the intersection of multiple relationship dimensions among 218 HIV-positive and 556 HIV-negative gay and bisexual men, and estimate associations with love and affection as well as various health and social covariates. We performed latent class analysis of relationships, employing five indicators: relationship status, sexual agreement (monogamous/open), and number of recent sex partners, sex parties, and anonymous sex encounters. We assessed differences in love and affection, and identified covariates using multinomial logistic regression. Two latent classes involved single men: ‘single, less sex partners’ (45% of sample) and ‘single, more sex partners’ (17%), differentiated by number of partners (52% vs. 92% of each class had ≥5 partners, respectively), party sex (3% vs. 57%), and anonymous sex (2% vs. 58%). Three involved regular partners: ‘monogamish’ (15%) (78% were monogamous yet 50% reported ≥1 recent sex partner); ‘open, less sex partners’ (15%) (100% open, 43% ≥5 partners, 10% party sex, 4% anonymous sex); and ‘open, more sex partners’ (9%) (96% open, 92% ≥5 partners, 47% party sex, 69% anonymous sex). Love and affection were common across classes, although more prevalent among partnered (85–91%) versus single (48–51%) men. Relative to ‘single/less partners,’ the study demonstrated that higher sexual sensation seeking scores were associated with membership in every class except ‘monogamish’; erectile dysfunction drug use was associated with being in the ‘more partners’ (single and open) classes; anxiety and older age were associated with the ‘open/less partners’ class; and loneliness was associated with reduced odds of membership in all three partnered classes. We uncovered considerable relational diversity among gay and bisexual men and complex associations with love and wellbeing. Findings are relevant for sex researchers, educators, and therapists.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".