P311 Examining interactions with online outreach workers for gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background As the Internet is increasingly becoming a platform for sexual health education, gay, bisexual and other men who have sex with men (GBM) are having greater interactions with online outreach workers. However, little is known about the content or their assessment of these interactions. Methods Recruitment of GBM aged 14+ into the #iCruise study occurred across Ontario from 07/2017–01/2018 via socio-sexual websites/apps. Participants reported details about the interactions they had with online outreach workers including what health topics were discussed and gave an assessment of the interaction via Likert scale questions. Results A total of 910 GBM who completed baseline cross-sectional data collection were eligible for this analysis. Half of participants (49%) reported being under age 30, 62% White, 65% gay-identified, 12% HIV-positive, 44% with some university education, and 12% living in rural areas. Among the sample, nearly 10% (9.7%, n=88/910) reported having ever interacted with an online outreach worker: of these, 37 (42%) reported one interaction, 38 (43%) reported 2–5 interactions, and 8 (9%) reported 6+ interactions; 5 (6%) unsure. Healthy sex (34%) and HIV/STI testing (e.g., where to get tested; 34%) were the most popular topics discussed, followed by HIV/STI prevention (27%), pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) (19%), HIV/sexually transmitted infection (STI) transmission risk (17%), HIV/STI treatment and care (13%), condoms (11%) and lube (11%). When rating the outreach interaction, GBM reported: it was easy to understand (92%), gay/bisexual friendly (88%), relevant to gay/bisexual guys (87%), ‘didn’t make me feel bad about myself’ (79%), applicable (72%), and the interaction had fully answered their question (74%). Over half of the participants reported the information was transgender friendly (56%) and relevant to trans guys (52%). Conclusion A significant minority of GBM had interactions with online outreach that covered a range of health topics. These interactions were generally very positive and rated understandable, applicable, and inclusive. Disclosure No significant relationships.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.040 | 0.004 |
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".