MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3113890518 · doi:10.1080/09540121.2020.1861181

Gender, transactional sex, and HIV prevention cascade engagement among urban refugee and displaced adolescents and youth in Kampala, Uganda

2020· article· en· W3113890518 on OpenAlexafffund
Carmen H. Logie, Moses Okumu, Simon Mwima, Robert Hakiza, Heather Abela, Peter Kyambadde

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Care · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive Health
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersInstitute of Gender and HealthNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchOntario Ministry of Research, Innovation and ScienceCanada Research ChairsCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsTransactional sexCondomMedicineRefugeeDemographySex workYoung adultHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)GerontologyPopulationEnvironmental healthFamily medicineGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

= 88) aged 16-24 living in Kampala's informal settlements. We conducted gender-disaggregated multivariable linear and logistic regressions to examine associations between past 12-month transactional sex and: lifetime HIV testing, condom self-efficacy, and recent [past 3-month] consistent condom use. Among the 27% of young women reporting transactional sex, 63% reported HIV testing. In multivariable analyses with young women, transactional sex was associated with higher condom self-efficacy, increased consistent condom use, but not HIV testing. Among the 48% of young men reporting transactional sex, 50% reported HIV testing. In multivariable analyses with young men, transactional sex was associated with lower HIV testing but not with condom self-efficacy or consistent condom use. Young men were 68% less likely to report HIV testing if transactional sex engaged. Findings point to urgent HIV testing gaps among transactional sex engaged urban refugee/displaced youth and a need for gender-tailored HIV prevention strategies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.638

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS CareSame topicAdolescent Sexual and Reproductive HealthFrench-language works237,207