The relevance of communal altruism for sexual minority men in contemporary contexts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are many reasons why individuals engage in prosocial behavior; communal sexual altruism is based on the notion that some practice safer sex in the interest of promoting the well-being of their community/in-group. Given that definitions of what constitutes "safer sex" have changed with advances in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevention, we investigated the importance of communal sexual altruism (herein "altruism") among urban gay, bisexual, and other sexual minority men (GBM) in the contemporary context. Using a sample of 2449 GBM we examined the association of both safer-sex-related attitudes (e.g., HIV treatment optimism-skepticism) and behaviors (e.g., condomless anal sex [CAS]) with altruism scores. Higher altruism scores were associated with a lower likelihood of CAS and a greater frequency of discussing HIV status with new partners. These findings demonstrate that many GBM are motivated to engage in several kinds of behaviors that improve the well-being of their in-group (i.e., the GBM community).
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 | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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".