Love with HIV : A Latent Class Analysis of Sexual and Intimate Relationship Experiences Among Women Living with HIV in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Love remains hidden in HIV research in favor of a focus on risk. Among 1424 women living with HIV in Canada, we explored (1) whether eight facets of sex and intimacy (marital status, sexual activity, physical intimacy, emotional closeness, power equity, sexual exclusivity, relationship duration, and couple HIV serostatus) may coalesce into distinct relationship types, and (2) how these relationship types may be linked to love as well as various social, psychological, and structural factors. Five latent classes were identified: no relationship (46.5%), relationships without sex (8.6%), and three types of sexual relationships—short term (15.4%), long term/unhappy (6.4%), and long term/happy (23.2%, characterized by equitable power, high levels of physical and emotional closeness, and mainly HIV-negative partners). While women in long-term/happy relationships were most likely to report feeling love for and wanted by someone “all of the time,” love was not exclusive to sexual or romantic partners and a sizeable proportion of women reported affection across latent classes. Factors independently associated with latent class membership included age, children living at home, sexism/genderism, income, sex work, violence, trauma, depression, HIV treatment, awareness of treatment’s prevention benefits, and HIV-related stigma. Findings reveal the diversity of women’s experiences with respect to love, sex, and relationships and draw attention to the sociostructural factors shaping intimate partnering in the context of HIV. A nuanced focus on promoting healthy relationships and supportive social environments may offer a more comprehensive approach to supporting women’s overall sexual health and well-being than programs focused solely on sexual risk reduction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".