Between two pandemics: Older, gay men's experiences across HIV/AIDS and COVID-19
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pandemics are a component of human life, and have had great bearing on the trajectory of human evolution. Historically, the biomedical aspects of pandemics have been overrepresented, but there is growing recognition of the degree to which pandemics are socially and culturally embedded, highlighting how virus perception is socially and politically informed. Older (50+), gay men represent a population who have experienced two global pandemics in their lifespans: HIV/AIDS and COVID-19. Although governments and health officials largely failed gay men during the HIV/AIDS pandemic, gay men represent an important source of pandemic information and their experiences have much to offer health professionals and policymakers. As such, a small but growing body of literature has compared gay men's experiences amidst the two pandemics. The current study drew on constructivist grounded theory methods to examine how living through the HIV/AIDS pandemic has influenced older gay men's perspectives of COVID-19. Twenty Canadian-based gay men aged 50+ participated in semi-structured interviews via Zoom. Analysis revealed three key processes: (1) uncertainty and the familiarity of loss, (2) witnessing pandemic inequities, and, (3) navigating constantly evolving (mis)information. We highlight the utility of this knowledge to informing future pandemic planning and policies.
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.
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 | 0.049 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it