Risk, pleasure, intimacy, and seroadaptation: Examining correlates of barebacker identity in the age of biomedical HIV treatment and prevention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Barebacking has been defined as condomless anal intercourse (CLAI) in the presence of HIV risk among men who have sex with men. As HIV risk contexts are evolving due to advancements in biomedical HIV treatment and prevention, we need to examine previous assumptions about risk behaviour. The present study compares correlates of risk-taking, risk reduction and pleasure and intimacy among (n = 256) self-identified barebackers (barebacker group), men who engaged in condomless sex with partners of unknown or positive serostatus (CLAI group) and men reporting neither identity nor behaviour in Canada and the U.S (non-CLAI group). Barebacker identity was associated with sexual sensation-seeking, perceived benefits of barebacking, pleasure interference with condoms, chatting about barebacking online and use of seroadaptive strategies. Participants in the CLAI group used more seroadaptive strategies yet were higher in STI vulnerability. Condomless anal sex is likely a significant aspect of self-concept in barebackers. HIV-prevention efforts that focus on enhancing efficacy of seroadaptation is more appropriate for this population rather than promoting condom use.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".