Social and Behavioral Challenges of HIV Vaccines: Implications for Social Work and Social Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A safe and efficacious HIV vaccine would be a tremendous asset to halting the spread of HIV. Nevertheless, HIV vaccines face a range of social and behavioral challenges that will determine their ultimate contribution to prevention. HIV vaccine development and clinical trials raise thorny social, behavioral, and ethical issues around resource allocation, recruitment and enrollment, trial implementation, and post-trial follow-up and access to services. Furthermore, the success of future HIV vaccines is contingent on access and acceptability. Involvement of social work and social service providers and engagement of social science research across the continuum of HIV vaccine development and dissemination are central to successful community engagement and advocacy, mitigation of social harms of clinical trials, support for fair and ethical conduct of trials, acceptability and access to future vaccines, and integration of HIV vaccines with behavioral HIV prevention.
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 | 0.047 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".