MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3180423317 · doi:10.31899/hiv13.1008

Understanding the HIV/STI prevention needs of men who have sex with men in Kenya

2006· report· en· W3180423317 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Washington Onyango‐Ouma, Harriet Birungi, Population Council, Scott Geibel

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthNational Commission for Science and TechnologyUnited States Agency for International Development
KeywordsMen who have sex with menPsychological interventionDenialPopulationConfidentialityMedicinePeer educationHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Environmental healthGerontologyPsychologyPublic healthHealth educationPolitical scienceSyphilisFamily medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Understanding the sexual behaviors of populations who are vulnerable to HIV is an important component in the battle against AIDS. Yet policymakers in developing countries, particularly in Africa, have often overlooked men who have sex with men (MSM) as a vulnerable group because of stigmatization of homosexual behavior and denial of the existence of MSM and the role they may play in HIV transmission. A growing body of literature not only documents the presence of this population in Africa but also the importance of reaching them with information and services to prevent HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). In response to this gap, researchers from the Institute of African Studies at the University of Nairobi and the Horizons and FRONTIERS Programs of the Population Council undertook a study of MSM in Nairobi. The goals were to understand the extent to which MSM are at risk of HIV and other STIs, identify factors associated with risk behaviors, and determine their sexual health needs to develop appropriate interventions. As this research summary states, targeted interventions, such as confidential counseling and peer education are needed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations5
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→