Processes underpinning survival in gay men living with HIV and a history of suicidality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gay men living with HIV represent a particularly high risk group for suicide; however, little is known about suicidality, specifically, resiliencies in the context of suicidality among this particular group of men. The current study draws on photovoice and grounded theory methods to examine the processes that underpin survival for gay men living with HIV who have experienced suicidality. Twenty-two Canadian-based gay men participated, taking photographs to depict and discuss their perspectives on resiliencies. Analyses revealed three processes that supported men's survival: (1) connecting to key supports, (2) finding sanctity in the outdoors, and (3) giving help as purposeful value-adding. Connecting to key supports highlighted the utility of connection and therapeutic communication, listening and support provided by friends, family and professionals. Finding sanctity in the outdoors emphasised the healing capacity of outdoor green spaces, and giving help as purposeful value-adding illustrated the meaning and purpose men derived from supporting others. These findings can inform public health and primary care interventions to foster gay men's resilience and coping, and ultimately suicide prevention efforts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".