Is <scp>HIV</scp> prevention creating new biosocialities among gay men? Treatment as prevention and pre‐exposure prophylaxis in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The advancements of "treatment as prevention" (TasP), "undetectable viral load" (UVL) and "pre-exposure prophylaxis" (PrEP) are redefining HIV prevention standards. Relying on the concept of biosociality, this article explores how gay men rally around, debate, and sometimes disagree about these emerging HIV prevention technologies. This article is based on data from the Resonance Project, a Canadian community-based research project. Twelve focus groups (totalling 86 gay and bisexual men) were held in three Canadian cities (Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver) in 2013-2014. Respondents view UVL and PrEP through the prism of their generational experience of HIV prevention. In this respect, biosocialities highlight an experiential dimension that is tied to the context of the HIV epidemic. The biosocialities of HIV prevention are also built around serological identities. However, our study shows the diversity of these positions. Analysis grounded in biosocialities is useful for better understanding how scientific information circulates, is made sense of, and generates debate among gay men.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".