MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Bareback Sex and the Law: The Difficult Issue of HIV Status Disclosure

2006· review· en· W38036437 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dave Holmes, Patrick O’Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPopularityScope (computer science)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Promotion (chess)Perspective (graphical)PsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceLawFamily medicinePolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Unsafe anal intercourse (bareback sex) is on the rise within the gay community. 2. Barebacking constitutes a sexual practice with strong HIV-related legal implications. Nurses need to be aware of public health laws to be able to protect clients from undue legal prosecution. 3. Nurses need to be aware of the components of HIV pretest counseling. 4. Adopting a nonjudgmental, matter-of-fact approach is essential in establishing effective therapeutic relationships with clients who engage in bareback sex.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.751
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0180.030
Scholarly communication0.0120.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0070.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health ServicesSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207