MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392846708 · doi:10.2196/50743

Estimation of the Population Size of Street- and Venue-Based Female Sex Workers and Sexually Exploited Minors in Rwanda in 2022: 3-Source Capture-Recapture

2024· article· en· W4392846708 on OpenAlex
Elysée Tuyishime, Eric Remera, Catherine Kayitesi, Samuel S. Malamba, Beata Sangwayire, Ignace Kabano, Horacio Ruiseñor-Escudero, Tom Oluoch, Angela Chukwu

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMark and recapturePopulationPopulation sizeEstimationDemographySample size determinationGeographyStatisticsMedicineEnvironmental healthMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: HIV surveillance among key populations is a priority in all epidemic settings. Female sex workers (FSWs) globally as well as in Rwanda are disproportionately affected by the HIV epidemic; hence, the Rwanda HIV and AIDS National Strategic Plan (2018-2024) has adopted regular surveillance of population size estimation (PSE) of FSWs every 2-3 years. OBJECTIVE: We aimed at estimating, for the fourth time, the population size of street- and venue-based FSWs and sexually exploited minors aged ≥15 years in Rwanda. METHODS: In August 2022, the 3-source capture-recapture method was used to estimate the population size of FSWs and sexually exploited minors in Rwanda. The field work took 3 weeks to complete, with each capture occasion lasting for a week. The sample size for each capture was calculated using shinyrecap with inputs drawn from previously conducted estimation exercises. In each capture round, a stratified multistage sampling process was used, with administrative provinces as strata and FSW hotspots as the primary sampling unit. Different unique objects were distributed to FSWs in each capture round; acceptance of the unique object was marked as successful capture. Sampled FSWs for the subsequent capture occasions were asked if they had received the previously distributed unique object in order to determine recaptures. Statistical analysis was performed in R (version 4.0.5), and Bayesian Model Averaging was performed to produce the final PSE with a 95% credibility set (CS). RESULTS: We sampled 1766, 1848, and 1865 FSWs and sexually exploited minors in each capture round. There were 169 recaptures strictly between captures 1 and 2, 210 recaptures exclusively between captures 2 and 3, and 65 recaptures between captures 1 and 3 only. In all 3 captures, 61 FSWs were captured. The median PSE of street- and venue-based FSWs and sexually exploited minors in Rwanda was 37,647 (95% CS 31,873-43,354), corresponding to 1.1% (95% CI 0.9%-1.3%) of the total adult females in the general population. Relative to the adult females in the general population, the western and northern provinces ranked first and second with a higher concentration of FSWs, respectively. The cities of Kigali and eastern province ranked third and fourth, respectively. The southern province was identified as having a low concentration of FSWs. CONCLUSIONS: We provide, for the first time, both the national and provincial level population size estimate of street- and venue-based FSWs in Rwanda. Compared with the previous 2 rounds of FSW PSEs at the national level, we observed differences in the street- and venue-based FSW population size in Rwanda. Our study might not have considered FSWs who do not want anyone to know they are FSWs due to several reasons, leading to a possible underestimation of the true PSE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.285 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it