Adherence practices among people living with HIV
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper offers a critique of patient-deficit models of adherence by examining the articulation of dosing schedules and food prohibitions with the structure of everyday lives. Interviews with 31 men and 4 women taking HAART show that doses associated with regular daily life events are most consistently taken, but many individuals rework official dosing guidelines around timing and food consumption. Barriers to adherence often arise from conflicting demands imposed by work schedules, different medications, food prohibitions, and even outright discrimination as in the case of US immigration policy. Adherence may be the outcome of compromises made in an effort to solve contradictory demands, and may be situational and related to the qualities of particular drugs, as much as to personality traits. Autobiographical narratives that give order to one's sense of self provide foundations upon which adherence decision making occurs. Finally, perceptions of drug effectiveness may lead to self-reinforcing adherence practices.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 it