Collaborative priority setting for human immunodeficiency virus rehabilitation research: A case report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The inclusion of community members and other stakeholders in the establishment of research priorities is vital to ensuring that priorities are congruent with the main concerns of affected communities. PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to identify priority research topics for addressing the activity and community participation needs of people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and meaningfully involve multiple stakeholders in the development of those priorities. METHOD: We invited people living with HIV, researchers, service providers, and policy makers to a 2-day forum. Twenty-six people participated in developing priorities through the application of two methodologies, the World Café and Dotmocracy. We evaluated the forum though immediate dialogue and a postproject survey. FINDINGS: Participants identified 10 high-priority research topics. Evaluation findings highlighted positive substantive, instrumental, personal, and normative outcomes of stakeholder involvement. IMPLICATIONS: The identified priority topics can guide future occupational therapy practice and research in this emerging area.
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 | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".