Awareness and willingness to usepre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP)and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP)among sexually active adults in Ghana
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AMA Eshun S, Tampah-Naah A, Udor R, Addae D. Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) among sexually active adults in Ghana. HIV & AIDS Review. International Journal of HIV-Related Problems. 2023. doi:10.5114/hivar.2023.133168. APA Eshun, S., Tampah-Naah, A., Udor, R., & Addae, D. (2023). Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) among sexually active adults in Ghana. HIV & AIDS Review. International Journal of HIV-Related Problems. https://doi.org/10.5114/hivar.2023.133168 Chicago Eshun, Samuel Nuamah, Anthony Mwinilanaa Tampah-Naah, Rita Udor, and David Addae. 2023. "Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) among sexually active adults in Ghana". HIV & AIDS Review. International Journal of HIV-Related Problems. doi:10.5114/hivar.2023.133168. Harvard Eshun, S., Tampah-Naah, A., Udor, R., and Addae, D. (2023). Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) among sexually active adults in Ghana. HIV & AIDS Review. International Journal of HIV-Related Problems. https://doi.org/10.5114/hivar.2023.133168 MLA Eshun, Samuel Nuamah et al. "Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) among sexually active adults in Ghana." HIV & AIDS Review. International Journal of HIV-Related Problems, 2023. doi:10.5114/hivar.2023.133168. Vancouver Eshun S, Tampah-Naah A, Udor R, Addae D. Awareness and willingness to use pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) and post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) among sexually active adults in Ghana. HIV & AIDS Review. International Journal of HIV-Related Problems. 2023. doi:10.5114/hivar.2023.133168.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".