MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Perceptions of intersectional stigma among diverse women living with HIV in the United States

2018· article· en· W2800685536 on OpenAlexaff
Whitney S. Rice, Carmen H. Logie, Tessa M. Nápoles, Melonie Walcott, Abigail Batchelder, Mirjam-Colette Kempf, Gina M. Wingood, Deborah Konkle‐Parker, Bülent Turan, Tracey E. Wilson, Mallory O. Johnson, Sheri D. Weiser, Janet M. Turan

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Science & Medicine · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCenter for AIDS Research, University of North Carolina at Chapel HillNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Dental and Craniofacial ResearchNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Institute on Drug AbuseNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersNational Institute of Mental HealthNational Cancer InstituteNational Institute on Alcohol Abuse and AlcoholismUniversity of California, San FranciscoEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityNational Institutes of HealthOffice of Research on Women's HealthUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham
KeywordsStigma (botany)Socioeconomic statusThematic analysisIntersectionalityPublic healthQualitative researchGerontologySocial stigmaHealth equityInterpersonal communicationPsychologyGender studiesSocial psychologyMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)SociologyPopulationEnvironmental healthPsychiatryFamily medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations186
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueSocial Science & MedicineSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207