Assessment of the prevalence of bloodborne pathogens and associated risk behaviours among men who have sex with men and women who have sex with women in Winnipeg, Manitoba
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Statement of the problem: Men who have sex with men (MSM) are a high-risk group for HIV infection.Women who have sex with women (WSW) may be at elevated risk for HIV from male sex partners.Methods: The 'M-Track' HIV surveillance study of MSM was conducted in Winnipeg, Manitoba.A pilot study was undertaken concurrently to assess HIV risk among WSW.Convenience samples of MSM and WSW were surveyed concerning HIV risk behaviours and tested for HlV, hepatitis C, and syphilis.Results: MSM and WSW surveyed reported inconsistent condom use and high rates of injection drug use and sex trade involvement.Prevalence of blood-borne pathogens was high among both groups.High rates of response error suggested difficulty in survey participation among both groups.Conclusions: The samples of MSM and WSW reached may represent a high-risk subset of MSM and WSW.Study methods may be improved to better invite and be appropriate for diverse participants......214 WSW Questionnaire items abbreviated and data entry fields .....225 MSM questionnaire key items and response criteria for associated key-dependent items ...236 WSW questionnaire key items and response criteria for associated key-dependent items ...
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".