MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1868945301 · doi:10.24908/ss.v7i1.3308

Public Health STI/HIV Surveillance: Exploring the Society of Control

2009· article· en· W1868945301 on OpenAlexafffund
Patrick O’Byrne, Dave Holmes

Bibliographic record

VenueSurveillance & Society · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersInstitute of Infection and ImmunityCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSocial controlSovereigntySociologyStyle (visual arts)DisciplineVariety (cybernetics)Control (management)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Public relationsPolitical scienceLawSocial scienceMedicineComputer sciencePoliticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While Michel Foucault asserted that the sovereign style of rule had disappeared, instead replaced by a disciplinary society (wherein individuals were trained/domesticated in a variety of social institutions), years later, Gilles Deleuze recounted how this social structure had again changed. Within this new system, which Deleuze labelled the society of control, social networks have become so densely intertwined that it no longer matters whether or not someone is disciplined in accordance with social rules because now they are entrapped within a web that would more often than not ensure that socially appropriate trajectories are maintained. Using Deleuze's framework about the society of control, in this paper, we explore the current public health STI/HIV surveillance system. The outcome of this exploration is the suggestion that the system is, in fact, an example of a densely intertwined (rhizomatic) control society, and that it is maintained through the desires of the people.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.057
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSurveillance & SocietySame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207