MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1568968850 · doi:10.5772/31560

The Relationship Between Alcohol Consumption and Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection and Risk Behaviour: A Systematic Literature Review of High-Risk Groups, with a Focus on South Africa

2012· book-chapter· en· W1568968850 on OpenAlexaff
G. Manuela, Michelle Schneider, Mihai Radu, Charles Parry, Matthew Chersich

Bibliographic record

VenueInTech eBooks · 2012
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsMaRSUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCapePublic healthHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Alcohol consumptionUnit (ring theory)Alcohol abuseMedicineEnvironmental healthLibrary scienceFamily medicinePsychiatryGeographyBiologyNursingAlcoholPsychologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Alcohol has been implicated in the transmission of HIV via unsafe sex in many systematic reviews examining this association. These literature reviews and meta-analyses have varied foci. Baliunas (2010) looked at alcohol consumption and risk for incident HIV. Fischer (2007) and Kalichman ( Woolf-King and Maisto (2011) conducted a narrative literature review that included qualitative and quantitative literature on the link of alcohol and high-risk sexual behaviour in sub-Saharan Africa. Pithey and Parry ( The results included a highrisk group category of shebeen/beerhall patrons and bar and hotel workers. These reviews and the Braithwaite study, while consistently indicating a strong association, do not provide sufficient epidemiological evidence of causality between alcohol use and HIV sero-conversion. They only demonstrate that alcohol is an important correlate of sexual risk behaviour in populations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInTech eBooksSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207