MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068231994 · doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7565.409-a

Male circumcision is not a panacea for HIV prevention

2006· article· en· W2068231994 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jocalyn Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGenital Health and Disease
Canadian institutionsToronto Public Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPanacea (medicine)Male circumcisionHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineData scienceComputer scienceWorld Wide WebFamily medicineAlternative medicinePopulationHealth servicesEnvironmental healthPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Male circumcision was a hot topic at the 16th international conference on AIDS, on 13-18 August, in Toronto, accompanied by passionate debate on both sides. Delegates heard from scientists that new HIV infections in men could be substantially reduced and million of lives saved if male circumcision were to be introduced. Critics argued that male circumcision will not be the quick fix for HIV prevention unless cultural beliefs are included …

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)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.036
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.104

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.036
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.014
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0080.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations3
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJSame topicGenital Health and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207