MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399324126

Existing Analytical Frameworks for Information Behaviour Don’t Fully Explain HIV/AIDS Information Exchange in Rural Communities in Ontario, Canada. A Review of: Veinot, T., Harris, R., Bella, L., Rootman, I., & Krajnak, J. (2006). HIV/AIDS Information exchange in rural communities: Preliminary findings from a three‐province study. Canadian Journal of Information and Library Science, 30(3/4), 271‐290.

2010· review· en· W4399324126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kate Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Media and Politics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBELLAHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Information exchangeSociologyGeographyPsychologyComputer scienceGenealogyHistoryMedicineTelecommunicationsPhysicsVirology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective – To explore and analyze, against three theoretical frameworks of information behaviours, how people with HIV/AIDS, their friends, and their family living in rural communities find information on HIV/AIDS. Design – Qualitative, individual, in‐depth, semi‐structured interviews. Setting – Two rural regions in Ontario, Canada. Subjects – Sixteen participants; 10 people with HIV/AIDS (PHAs) and 6 family members or friends. Methods – Participants were recruited through health care providers, social service agencies and through snowball sampling. Semi‐structure interviews were conducted focusing on participants’ experience with HIV/AIDS, how they find and use information on HIV/AIDS, networks for information exchange and the effect of technology on information exchange. Interviews were taped, transcribed, analyzed qualitatively using NVivo software. Results were compared to three theoretical frameworks for information behaviour: 1. purposeful information seeking (i.e., the idea that people purposefully seek information to bridge perceived knowledge gaps); 2. non‐purposeful or incidental information acquisition (i.e., the idea that people absorb information from going about daily activities); and 3. information gate keeping (i.e., the concept of private individuals who act as community links and filters for information gathering and dissemination). Main Results – Consistent with the theories: •PHAs prefer to receive information from people they have a personal relationship with, particularly their physician and especially other PHAs. •PHAs’ friends and families rely on their friends and family for information, and are particularly reliant upon the PHA in their lives. •Fear of stigma and discrimination cause some to avoid seeking information or to prefer certain sources of information, such as healthcare providers, who are bound by codes of professional conduct. •Emotional support is important in information provision and its presence supersedes the professional role of the provider (social workers and counsellors were identified as key information sources over medical professionals in this instance). Participants responded negatively to the perceived lack of support from providers including doubting the information provided. •PHAs monitor their worlds and keep up to date about HIV/AIDS.Inconsistent with theories: •Reliance on caregivers for information is not solely explained by fear of stigma or exposure. Rather, it is the specialized knowledge and immersion in HIV/AIDS which is valued. •The distinction between peer or kin sources of information and institutional information sources is less clear and relationships with professionals can turn personal over time. •Inter‐personal connections include organisations, not just individuals, particularly AIDS Service Organizations and HIV specialist clinics. •Relatively few incidents of finding useful information about HIV/AIDS incidentally were described. The concept of information just being “out there” was not really applicable to rural settings, likely due to the lack of discussion within participant communities and local media. When it was discussed, participants reported being more likely to gain misinformation through their personal networks. •Incidental information acquisition originates mostly from professional and organisational sources. Participants identified posters, leaflets, and, for those who interacted with organisations, information via mail as contributing to current awareness. •The gate keeping concept does not capture all the information sharing activities undertaken by “gate keepers” in rural areas, and neither does it include formal providers of information, yet all PHAs interviewed identified formal providers as key sources. Conclusion – The findings reinforce some of the existing analytical framework theories, particularly the importance of affective components (i.e. emotional supports) of information seeking, the presence of monitoring behaviours, and of interpersonal sources of information. However, alternate theories may need to be explored as the role of institutional information sources in the lives of PHAs doesn’t match the theoretical predication and the “gate keeper” concept doesn’t capture a significant portion of that role in rural HIV/AIDS information exchange.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.114
Threshold uncertainty score0.825

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.016
Science and technology studies0.0110.018
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.122
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals)→Same topicSocial Media and Politics→French-language works237,207→