MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554362022 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000109

Male Circumcision for HIV Prevention in High HIV Prevalence Settings: What Can Mathematical Modelling Contribute to Informed Decision Making?

2009· review· en· W1554362022 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2009
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoWeill Cornell Medical CollegeNational Institutes of HealthUniversity of Cape TownJohns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthEgg Farmers of CanadaUniversité de Versailles Saint-Quentin-en-YvelinesUniversiteit StellenboschMedical Research CouncilLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineJoint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDSBill and Melinda Gates FoundationJohns Hopkins UniversityUnited Arab Emirates UniversityStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteAssistance publique-Hôpitaux de ParisImperial College LondonQatar Foundation
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicinePre-exposure prophylaxisMale circumcisionEpidemiologyIncidence (geometry)Family medicineDeveloping countryEnvironmental healthPopulationMen who have sex with menHealth servicesSyphilisPathologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experts from UNAIDS, WHO, and the South African Centre for Epidemiological Modelling report their review of mathematical models estimating the impact of male circumcision on HIV incidence in high HIV prevalence settings.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.064
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it