High Touch Research: Building Community for Those Living with HIV
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Participatory action research can be a research methodology that seeks to offer relational processes that develop high touch research relationships, create co-empowerment, while fostering resiliency and strength, within the HIV community. The Calgary HIV Social Society (CHSS) in Calgary, Alberta, Canada co-developed with peer-researchers at Mount Royal University, a progressive form of action-oriented research that allowed the HIV community to develop and provide social gatherings to reduce the impact of stigma and isolation. The research project was developed with the community of people living with HIV to reduce the impact of isolation and stigma. The focus of the research was to better understand how social gatherings could improve the quality of life for those living with HIV. The action-oriented methodology allowed for HIV peer-researchers to bring their expertise on what was needed to reduce stigma and isolation. The HIV social support community created participatory action research processes that successfully contributed to building an inclusive, community for people living with HIV. This paper will share the themes that acknowledge the significant impact that a HIV high touch relationship research community can have for those, who face the barriers of isolation and stigma by increasing community connection, reducing financial constraints that limit participation, while increasing mental health wellness.
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 | 0.040 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.038 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".