How You Doin'?: Social discrimination and its impact on health among black men who have sex with men in Montreal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cette étude explore comment africaine et immigrée Caraïbes anglophones hommes qui ont des rapports sexuels avec des hommes sont victimes de discrimination sociale (homophobie, le racisme, la pauvreté, etc.) et examine l'impact de cette discrimination sociale sur leur santé mentale et sexuelle. En utilisant une approche de recherche qualitative phénoménologique par la théorie de l'intersectionnalité, l'auteur a interviewé six hommes noirs qui ont des rapports sexuels avec des hommes (HSH) au sujet de leurs expériences. L'étude a révélé que les expériences de discrimination sociale en formes multiples et convergentes, telles que le racisme, l'homophobie et le classisme des participants, ont eu un impact sur leurs identités, relations avec les autres et la santé sexuelle et mentale. Les participants ont recommandé un programme d'intervention individualisé holistique sera utilisée pour traiter les effets de la discrimination sociale intersectionnelle sur leur identité et le bien-être. (Google Translator)
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".