Queering poppers literature : a critical interpretive synthesis of health research on alkyl nitrite use and Canadian policy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Poppers (alkylnitrites) are vasodilators used by many gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) to relieve pain, enhance pleasure, and facilitate penetration during sex. In 2013, the Canadian government cracked down on the sale of poppers products, however prevalence of poppers use among GBMSM in Canada remains high. Poppers have been studied by medical researchers since the 1980s, yet qualitative and community-based research to inform federal policy, remains somewhat less common. Methods: We conducted a critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to better understand poppers health literature using the medical model of health as a point of reference. Analysis was performed using inductive and deductive methods including reflexive note-taking, mind-mapping, and close coding. 153 publications were identified to inform this review of which 5 were chosen for coding based on a purposive sampling framework. Results: Our findings are unified within a theoretical construct we term responsibility. Responsibility is a construct we use to describe the bias we identified in health sciences literature regarding poppers use that tends to exaggerate the necessity for poppers cessation, and devalue both the benefits of poppers use and the perspectives and experiences of people who use poppers. The emphasison individual behavior change within the literature appears to be motivated less by objective measures or assessments of health risks and outcomes, and more by harmful stereotypes that position gay men and people who use drugs as inherently irresponsible. Conclusion: We conclude by discussing how these findings have important implications for the review of current policy on poppers sales in Canada which remains influenced by a literature base prejudiced by factors such as homophobia, heteronormativity, and drug stigma, and recommend areas for future work.
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 | 0.181 | 0.238 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.040 | 0.046 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".