Keeping Gay & Bisexual Men Safe: A History of HIV Prevention Work in Toronto
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Keeping Gay & Bisexual Men Safe: A History of HIV Prevention Work in TorontoHIV prevention work for men who have sex with men (MSM) represents a front-line institutional response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but one that has been highly contested in its substance and execution.In fact, since the discovery of the virus that causes AIDS 25 years ago, HIV prevention work has been the site of charged paradigmatic contests over how MSM are imagined as subjects of health directives, how to best manage, inform and govern sexual conduct, the role of sexual pleasure in prevention discourse, the goals of HIV prevention, and the management of evolving scientific knowledge about disease transmission and its relationship to prevention directives.This study will develop a history of MSM HIV prevention work in Toronto-a city with the highest concentration of HIV infected MSM and some of the most extensive outreach and prevention programs in Canada.The history of HIV prevention work can be conceived as a complex prevention field comprised of competing organizations and health specialists vying for limited resources and a voice in the development of prevention discourse and programming.Examining this changing institutional field from the emergence of AIDS in 1981 to the present, the study addresses four central questions:
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".