Meaningful inclusion of people living with HIV as a model for workplace policies: Key findings from the project PEER study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As a large number of people live with HIV, it is worthwhile to examine the integration of this group in the workplace. OBJECTIVE: To investigate how the operationalization of GIPA/MEPA supports workplace policies and practices for PLHIV. The study aims to explore what is being offered to support PLHIV in community-based agencies and what can be done to enhance the offerings. METHODS: For this community-based research, 2 bilingual online surveys were sent to 150 Canadian organizations that work closely with PLHIV or offer support to them. One of the surveys was for Executive Directors of these organizations while the other was sent to peers; i.e. PLHIV whose job is to offer services to PLHIV. Questions in the surveys varied between open-ended, binary, and Likert. RESULTS: GIPA/MEPA are implemented in most organizations and Executive Directors affirmed that PLHIV and their impacts on the workplace are valued. There is a consensus among Executive Directors that formal support is provided but most respondents argued that this support is not specific for PLHIV. More than half of respondents were either unaware or uncertain about the existence of informal support. Peer-employees claimed that one of the challenges of disclosing HIV to receive peer support is that they may face stigma. CONCLUSION: The application of GIPA/MEPA results in positive outcomes in the workplace. The study emphasizes the need to facilitate access to informal support.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".