Reaching Men: Addressing the Blind Spot in the HIV Response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, men are less likely than women to access human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) testing, treatment, and care, and consequently experience disproportionate HIV-related mortality. To address men’s underutilization of HIV services, efforts are needed on two fronts: challenging the regressive gender norms that discourage men from seeking health services, and developing improved health system policies, programs, and service delivery strategies to ensure better provision of HIV services to men. It has long been understood that harmful gender norms make women vulnerable to HIV, and this understanding should expand to include the way these norms also put men at risk. This paper presents the data concerning men and HIV, explores the impact of gender norms, examines national and international policy developments, and chronicles the evolution of men’s place in the HIV response. It does so in part by tracing the efforts of Sonke Gender Justice, a South African nongovernmental organization working across Africa, that it promotes the engagement of men in the fight against the dual epidemics of gender inequality and HIV.
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.001 |
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".