Confronting comorbidity risks within HIV biographies: gay men’s integration of HPV-associated anal cancer risk into their narratives of living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HPV-associated anal cancer is one of the most prevalent non-AIDS defining cancers affecting gay men living with HIV. Drawing on interviews with 25 HIV-positive gay men living in Toronto in 2017, we explored their responses to anal cancer as a comorbidity risk and the necessity of preventative screening. These participants had previously been screened for anal cancer through a clinical trial. The majority of our sample did not initially consider anal cancer a health priority. They relied on narratives of living with HIV – that is, on their HIV biographies – to make sense of anal cancer’s significance given their self-described lack of knowledge. This included references to personal-level narratives of the biographical disruption and revision associated with a HIV diagnosis, as well as reflections on community-level and socio-historical trends in the HIV epidemic. Drawing on these narratives, some started to accept anal cancer as a significant comorbidity risk, while others remained ambivalent. Those who began to accept anal cancer as significant integrated it into their HIV biographies to present anal cancer as a threat to the ontological security they have gained managing HIV in an era of effective treatment and to position themselves as pragmatic, responsible health-seekers. Others drew on their HIV biographies to vocalise resistance to chronic risk and medicalisation. Our analysis points to the fundamental role narratives play on everyday risk perception practices, health decision-making and, for those managing a chronic illness, on securing ontological security and presenting a coherent self-identity under conditions of expanding risks and prevention possibilities.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".