Foreword: Dare we hope for the erotic? HIV/AIDS, sexuality and ageing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Some people view ageing and sexual intimacy in mutually exclusive terms. They erroneously interpret ageing or growing older as the cessation of engagement in sexual activities that prioritise pleasure, in favour of respectability politics, which condition and regulate people’s sexual lives. Many feel the effects of this regulation in later life, but it is more pronounced for members of gender and sexually diverse communities, who experience multiple and intersecting forms of structural discrimination. For queer and trans older people living with HIV/AIDS, stereotypical understandings of sexual intimacies and continuing public discourse about HIV/AIDS risk factors create barriers to timely care and the exploration of the erotic potential in oneself. Sexual- and gender-based stigma and discrimination normalise and exacerbate inequalities that result in poor health outcomes and health disparities, which adoption of an intersectionality framework could help to address. The collection of chapters in this book disrupts and pushes beyond normative structures and understandings of HIV, sex and sexuality in later life. They reconfigure a narrative of sexual lives imbricated within the significations of HIV/AIDS to convey a colourful tapestry of queer and trans culture and life.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.046 | 0.023 |
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".