MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Combining Data Sources to Monitor the HIV Epidemic in Canada

2003· review· en· W2026699726 on OpenAlexaffabout
Chris Archibald, Jason M. Sutherland, J Geduld, Donald Sutherland, Ping Yan

Bibliographic record

VenueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Population and Public HealthCanadian Institute for Health InformationHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineEnvironmental healthMen who have sex with menGerontologyFamily medicineSyphilis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article describes the methods, results and future perspectives of four information sources used to monitor the HIV epidemic in Canada: AIDS case surveillance, HIV case surveillance, HIV sentinel serosurveillance, and behavioral surveillance. Synthesizing data from these multiple sources provides a more comprehensive picture of the HIV epidemic than any one source alone could provide. In Canada, there has been a shift over time from an epidemic dominated by men who have sex with men to one where more than half of new infections are attributed to other groups, such as injection drug users and non-injecting heterosexuals. The available evidence also suggests increasing HIV infections among Aboriginal persons and among women. Surveillance data have been used in Canada to guide prevention and care programs and to formulate policy. In particular, these data have been used to support the development of an HIV testing program in pregnancy, to re-direct community work toward injection drug users and the young, and to demonstrate the effectiveness of new treatments for HIV. The main challenge now is to continue to improve the monitoring of the shifting HIV epidemic with more accurate data and to use the resulting information to inform appropriate prevention and care responses.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0230.036
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations10
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAIDS Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency SyndromesSame topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual RiskFrench-language works237,207