Using Google Trends to Inform the Population Size Estimation and Spatial Distribution of Gay, Bisexual, and Other Men Who Have Sex With Men: Proof-of-concept Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We must triangulate data sources to understand best the spatial distribution and population size of marginalized populations to empower public health leaders to address population-specific needs. Existing population size estimation techniques are difficult and limited. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify a passive surveillance strategy that utilizes internet and social media to enhance, validate, and triangulate population size estimates of gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (gbMSM). METHODS: We explored the Google Trends platform to approximate an estimate of the spatial heterogeneity of the population distribution of gbMSM. This was done by comparing the prevalence of the search term "gay porn" with that of the search term "porn." RESULTS: Our results suggested that most cities have a gbMSM population size between 2% and 4% of their total population, with large urban centers having higher estimates relative to rural or suburban areas. This represents nearly a double up of population size estimates compared to that found by other methods, which typically find that between 1% and 2% of the total population are gbMSM. We noted that our method was limited by unequal coverage in internet usage across Canada and differences in the frequency of porn use by gender and sexual orientation. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that Google Trends estimates may provide, for many public health planning purposes, adequate city-level estimates of gbMSM population size in regions with a high prevalence of internet access and for purposes in which a precise or narrow estimate of the population size is not required. Furthermore, the Google Trends platform does so in less than a minute at no cost, making it extremely timely and cost-effective relative to more precise (and complex) estimates. We also discuss future steps for further validation of this approach.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".