MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2003568087 · doi:10.1080/17441692.2014.881521

Towards the embodiment of biosocial resistance? How to account for the unexpected effects of antiretroviral scale-up in the Central African Republic

2014· article· en· W2003568087 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre‐Marie David

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Public Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
FundersUniversité de LyonSidaction
KeywordsBiosocial theoryAntiretroviral treatmentStock (firearms)PoliticsEthnographyPublic healthDevelopment economicsEconomic growthCriminologySociologyAntiretroviral therapyHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicinePolitical scienceSocial psychologyPsychologyEconomicsVirologyGeographyViral loadLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At the fringes of the unprecedented medication scale-up in the treatment of HIV, many African countries have experienced dramatic antiretroviral drug stock-outs. Usually considered the result of irrational decisions on behalf of local politicians, programme managers and even patients (who are stigmatised as immoral), these problems seem not to be so exceptional. However, ethnographic attention to the social consequences of the presence and absence of antiretroviral drugs in the Central African Republic (CAR) suggests that these stock-outs entail far more than logistical failures. In 2010 and 2011 in the CAR, major antiretroviral treatment (ARV) stock-outs resulted in the renewal of 'therapeutic' social ties and also significant social resistance and defiance. While this paper explores reasons for the shortage, its focus is on subsequent popular reactions to it, particularly among people who are HIV-positive and dependent on ARVs. The exceptional and ambiguous consequences of these drug stock-outs raise new concerns relevant to the politics of global public health.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.409

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations15
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Public HealthSame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207