Increasing Civil Society Participation in the National HIV Response: The Role of UNGASS Reporting
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The 2001 Declaration of Commitment on HIV/AIDS provided impetus for strengthening collaboration between government and civil society partners in the HIV response. The biennial UNGASS reporting process is an opportunity for civil society to engage in a review of the implementation of commitments. METHODS: Descriptive analyses of the National Composite Policy Index from 135 countries; a debriefing on UNGASS reporting with civil society in 40 countries; and 3 country case studies on the UNGASS process. FINDINGS: In the latest UNGASS reporting round, engagement of civil society occurred in the vast majority of countries. The utility of UNGASS reporting seemed to be better understood by both government and civil society, compared with previous reporting rounds. Civil society participation was strongest when civil society groupings took the initiative and organized themselves. An important barrier was their lack of experience with national level processes. Civil society involvement in national HIV planning and strategic processes was perceived to be good, but better access to funding and technical support is needed. Instances remain where there are fundamental differences between government and civil society perceptions of the HIV policy and program environment. How or whether differences were resolved is not always clear, but both government and civil society seemed to appreciate the opportunity for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Collaborative reporting by government and civil society on UNGASS indicators is a small but potentially valuable step in what should be an ongoing and fully institutionalized process of collaborative planning, implementation, monitoring, assessment and correction of HIV responses. The momentum achieved through the UNGASS process should be maintained with follow-up actions to address data gaps, formalize partnerships and enhance active and meaningful engagement.
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 | 0.198 | 0.299 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".