MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2033061672 · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7427.1306-c

Canada supports agency criticised as an “AIDS denier”

2003· article· en· W2033061672 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Government (linguistics)Political scienceCriticismHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)International agencyLatin AmericansPublic administrationWork (physics)LawSociologyMedicineSocial scienceEngineeringVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Canadian agency that has been supported financially by the Canadian government has come under strong criticism for being an “AIDS denier.” The agency carries claims on its website that HIV is neither necessary nor sufficient to cause AIDS and that the number of AIDS cases worldwide has been manipulated and is really decreasing rather than increasing. The views on the website of InterPares (www.interpares.ca), a non-governmental agency, run counter to those stated on the Canadian federal health department's own website (www.hc-sc.gc.ca). InterPares describes itself as supporting “social justice work” in more than 20 countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. In 2002, it received $C5m (£2.2m; $3.8m; €;3.2m) from the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA). Dr Mark Wainberg, director of the AIDS Centre at McGill University, Montreal, and formerly president of the International AIDS Society, …

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.446

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0270.010
Scholarly communication0.0120.004
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0120.019
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.004

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.322 · 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
GenreCommentary

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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ→Same topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk→French-language works237,207→