Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper, which is based on a pilot study in Africa, raises a host of ethical issues in relation to ‘applying’ anthropology and collaborative HIV/AIDS research. The author identi?es major issues related to the reproductive rights of women and the welfare of their infants in the context of HIV/AIDS research in Africa. The account considers the implications of apparently well-intentioned research that fails to safeguard the well being and dignity of the people involved. It exposes serious problems concerning the lack of informed consent in a medical research project on antenatal testing and mother-to-child-transmission of HIV. Furthermore, the study draws attention to the need for repeated screening for new ethical issues in ongoing medical (and other) research projects involving research participants whose rights might be overlooked in outdated ethics considerations. The paper cautions anthropologists (and other researchers) about being “co-opted” by those in authority, and serves as a reminder about the ‘do no harm’ dictum.
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 | 0.069 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".