Discussions about STI histories and HIV-statuses among Gay men in Ottawa: An HIV prevention analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of examining the public health effects of media releases about HIV-status nondisclosure, a semi-structured interview technique was employed to collect data about gay men's perceptions of and experiences with HIV-status disclosure, nondisclosure, and prevention. In this article, participants' (N=27) narratives about their expectations of how and when HIV-status disclosure and discussions about STI histories should occur are presented, and then contrasted against stated (hypothetical) expectations with the stories they recounted about discussing HIV-status during previous sexual contacts (actual practices). These data highlight that the overwhelming socio-sexual norm among gay men in Ottawa is not to discuss HIV-status, and, instead, to perform HIV risk assessments based on the characteristics of their sexual partners and their relationships with these men. A small subset of participants, however, noted they used condoms to maintain what was called the code of silence (i.e., the norm not to discuss HIV), and to simultaneously minimize HIV transmission during sexual contacts with casual or anonymous partners. In light of the extant literature about STIs, HIV, and prevention among gay men, these data provide important insights for HIV prevention workers, who should consider how to tailor prevention efforts to local communities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".