Harm Reduction and HIV-Prevention among Injecting Drug Users in Australia: An International Comparison
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In response to the threat of HIV transmission via drug injection with shared needles, Australia developed a needle and syringe exchange program that became one of the most comprehensive in the world. Originally health professionals and pharmacists were given the responsibility of implementing the program. However, community-based AIDS organizations were soon also funded to distribute sterile injecting equipment, alcohol swabs, puncture-proof disposable containers, condoms, and safe sex information. Nearly all of the programs operated on a no-need-for-exchange basis, during hours and from outlets (both fixed and mobile) that were convenient for users. Their success in preventing the widespread transmission of HIV among injecting drug users was demonstrated in international studies that found a large discrepancy between the rates of HIV infection in cities with, and without, needle and syringe exchange programs, and was reflected in the continued low level of HIV infection among injecting drug users in Australia. Australia's success in preventing HIV transmission among drug users suggests the merits of the "harm reduction" approach to controlling drug use as well as funding community-based needle and syringe exchange programs.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".