Peers, Near-Peers, and Outreach Staff to Build Solidarity in Global HIV Research With Adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the global HIV epidemic, solidarity-building approaches to engage adolescents in HIV prevention research are not just advisable, but are imperative.In low resource settings, research-driven interventions have decreased HIV transmission among adults; adolescents, however, have not seen in the same declines (UNAIDS 2019).One reason is that research on adult HIV prevention interventions cannot be applied to adolescents -adolescents are undergoing puberty, have different romantic and sexual relationships, are dependent on families, have higher concerns about confidentiality and privacy, and have less access to care (Patton et al. 2016).Despite this need for research with adolescents, adolescents are often excluded from adult studies because of difficulties with consent -particularly for biomedical interventions such as voluntary medical circumcision and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), and for interventions targeting highly marginalized groups, such as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and questioning (LGBTQ+) youth and youth using substances.Investigators also face recruitment and enrollment challenges with adolescents in the most at-risk and stigmatized groups.Street youth, orphans, youth in antenatal care, LGBTQ+ youth, and adolescents living with HIV, are difficult to recruit and retain in research because of concerns about reinforcing stigma, confidentiality, and privacy.We believe that these difficulties with research consent, recruitment, and retention may have its roots in a lack of solidarity between research teams and these highly vulnerable and marginalized adolescent
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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.023 |
| 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".