MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753310753 · doi:10.1071/sh16243

Private sex workers’ engagement with sexual health services: an online survey

2017· article· en· W2753310753 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSexual Health · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsKensington Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFamily medicineReproductive healthThrushGonorrheaHealth careSex workersPopulationCervical cancerHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined where private sex workers (PSW) present for sexual health services, disclosure, services received, and their satisfaction with care. An online anonymous survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey (surveymonkey.com). Among the 53 participants, 42% attended a sexual health clinic, 24% attended a general practitioner (GP) and 34% attended both. Participants attending GPs were less likely to be offered a throat swab and opportunities for cervical screening, contraception and vaccination were often missed in both service models. Participants attending GPs were less likely to disclose sex work and were less satisfied. Better awareness of the sexual health needs of PSWs is important in GP services.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.271 · 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