‘… if U equals U what does the second U mean?’: sexual minority men’s accounts of HIV undetectability and untransmittable scepticism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The everyday meaning and use of HIV ‘undetectability’ raises significant questions about the social and sexual significance of this state of viral suppression. We conducted in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 25 sexual minority men living in Vancouver, Canada, including men living with HIV. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using grounded theory. Most participants understood being undetectable to signify that someone living with HIV is at a ‘low,’ ‘lower,’ or ‘slim to no’ risk of sexually transmitting HIV, as opposed to meaning ‘uninfectious’ or ‘untransmittable’. Men discussed how undetectability was communicated in-person and online, including via sexual networking apps, and revealed how it is sometimes confused or conflated with another biomedical advance in HIV-prevention, namely pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP). HIV-negative men expressed significant scientific scepticism, a reluctance to incorporate a partner’s low viral load or undetectable HIV status into their sexual decision-making, and an enduring fear associated with knowingly having sex with someone who is HIV-positive. We describe this as a form of untransmittable scepticism. While international campaigns have worked to communicate the scientific message that ‘undetectable equals untransmittable’ (U = U), the sexual stigma attached to HIV remains durable among some gay, bisexual, queer and other men who have sex with 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 | 0.007 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| 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".