Adjusting for hidden biases in sexual behaviour data: a mechanistic approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Two required inputs to mathematical models of sexually transmitted infections are the average duration in epidemiological risk states (e.g., selling sex) and the average rates of sexual partnership change. These variables are often only available as aggregate estimates from published cross-sectional studies, and may be subject to distributional, sampling, censoring, and measurement biases. Methods: We explore adjustments for these biases using aggregate estimates of duration in sex work and numbers of reported sexual partners from a published 2011 survey of female sex worker in Eswatini. We develop adjustments from first principles, and construct Bayesian hierarchical models to reflect our mechanistic assumptions about the bias-generating processes. Results: We show that different mechanisms of bias for duration in sex work may "cancel out" by acting in opposite directions, but that failure to consider some mechanisms could over- or underestimate duration in sex work by factors approaching 2. We also show that conventional interpretations of sexual partner numbers are biased due to implicit assumptions about partnership duration, but that unbiased estimators of partnership change rate can be defined that explicitly incorporate a given partnership duration. We highlight how the unbiased estimator is most important when the survey recall period and partnership duration are similar in length. Conclusions: While we explore these bias adjustments using a particular dataset, and in the context of deriving inputs for mathematical modelling, we expect that our approach and insights would be applicable to other datasets and motivations for quantifying sexual behaviour data.
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 | 0.058 | 0.175 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".