Stigma, discrimination and HIV or AIDS: an empirical investigation of Asian immigrants and refugees in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose HIV or AIDS remains invisible and dismissed by most South Asians living in Canada as HIV or AIDS issues are perceived as an offshoot of Western lifestyle linked with drug use and promiscuity. This paper aims to look into how people living with HIV or AIDS (PLWHA) cope with prejudice and stigma. Design/methodology/approach To guide this research, a constructivist grounded theory approach was adopted as the theoretical and methodological framework. The authors reached the participants through a Toronto-based group that works with PLWHA. The authors chose their respondents in a snowball method and interviewed them both in person and online. Findings This paper identifies how South Asian immigrants and refugees/refugees with HIV or AIDS claimants are vulnerable to discrimination in Canada due to the following factors, which include but are not limited to: a lack of information about HIV and AIDS incidence in the community; and the Canadian health system's inability to respond appropriately to the lack of information. Practical implications HIV service engagements should take place within the context of a constellation of local traditions, or standardized expectations of patient engagement with HIV services can be counterproductive. Originality/value It is critical that governmental action prioritizes increasing public understanding of stigma. To minimize the consequences of HIV-related discrimination and stigma, misconceptions about HIV transmission must be debunked.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".