“Stay Strong, Stay Sexy, Stay Native”: Storying Indigenous youth HIV prevention activism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Taking Action II is a community-based participatory action research project that adopted a strengths-based approach to thinking about Indigenous youth HIV prevention activism. Eighteen diverse Indigenous youth leaders produced digital stories about Indigenizing HIV prevention during the summer of 2012 at a week-long retreat. Youth were interviewed twice: right after they created their stories and again after community screenings. In the summer of 2013, youth reunited to collaboratively analyze the themes and meanings of their stories. Seven overlapping themes emerged that demonstrated how youth see HIV in the context of their lives' and community. The stories make connections between HIV and structural violence, culture and relationships. In particular, in the context of HIV prevention, they focus on (1) the role of family and elders, (2) traditional sacred notions of sexuality, (3) the importance of education, (4) reclaiming history, (5) focusing on strength, (6) Indigenous cosmology and (7) overcoming addictions. In contrast to conventional public health messaging, youth produced stories rarely focused on individual harm reduction strategies. Instead, ideas of Indigeneity and decolonization were foregrounded as key strategies for health promotion work.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".