The Treatment Action Campaign's Quest for Equality in HIV and Health: Learning from and Lessons for the Trade Union Movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>The Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) has been recognised as one of the most effective social movements in post-apartheid South Africa. Among other things, it is responsible for the world’s largest programme to provide anti-retroviral treatment to people with HIV through the public health system. This article looks at the lessons TAC learned from the trade union movement as it sought to build a mass movement of the poor around the human right to access essential medicines for millions of people infected with HIV. It explores how TAC sought to build an alliance with the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU) and its affiliates, and the vital role that an independent COSATU played in supporting AIDS activism and using its social weight to support campaigns for AIDS treatment. Finally it looks at what trade unions can learn from social movements and explains why an effective alliance between unions and social movements is so essential for pro-poor reform in the twenty-first century.</p>
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".