Giving a voice to (former) prisoners in the debate on prisoners’ health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The XVI International AIDS Conference, “AIDS 2006”, took place from 13 to 18 August and attracted 26,000 researchers, physicians, front‐line workers, advocates and others involved in the fight against HIV/AIDS from more than 170 countries. More than ever before, issues related to HIV/AIDS in prisons were presented and discussed. On the first day of the conference, a satellite meeting organized by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the Public Health Agency of Canada and the Correctional Service of Canada debated issues related to HIV/AIDS in prisons in great depth. At the Conference itself, two oral sessions and a large number of poster presentations were dedicated to HIV/AIDS in prisons. In addition, the United Nations released an important guidance document on issues related to HIV/AIDS in prisons (see elsewhere in this issue). Most activities focused on HIV prevention, although delegates also heard about efforts to make HIV treatment, including ARVs, available to prisoners in developing countries
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 | 0.058 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.033 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".