Human Immuno‐deficiency Virus and Infant Feeding in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies: Priorities and Policy Considerations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Issues surrounding mother-to-child transmission of HIV/AIDS pose considerable challenges in complex humanitarian emergencies. The risk of vertical transmission through breastfeeding is well recognised, but safe alternatives are limited by the social, economic and environmental conditions of emergency situations. In 2000, the World Health Organisation published a technical report on behalf of the UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/UNAIDS Inter-agency Task Team on Mother-to-child Transmission of HIV which outlined revised recommendations for infant feeding by HIV-positive women. This paper outlines reasons why these recommendations may be insufficient during the initial stages of complex humanitarian emergencies and proposes recommendations for establishing infant-feeding policy. Methods of mother-to-child transmission of HIV are reviewed and recent research findings are discussed. Rationale for modifying the 2000 UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/UNAIDS infant-feeding recommendations in complex emergency situations is explored from the perspective of the infant, the mother and humanitarian field staff. Ethical limitations and future priorities are considered. The paper concludes with recommendations and a policy decision-making framework for consideration during the initial stages of humanitarian crises.
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 | 0.013 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".