Rehabilitation: A crucial component in the future of HIV care and support
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Provision of antiretroviral therapy (ART) is not an end in itself but a means to achieving improved wellness for people living with HIV. Rehabilitation, broadly defined, is another key contributor to wellness within this context. Understanding the potential for rehabilitation requires that one is able to consider HIV not only within a biomedical model that focuses on body systems, diagnoses and symptoms, but also within a rehabilitation framework that focuses on how these diagnoses and symptoms affect people’s lives more broadly. Furthermore, rehabilitation is a human rights imperative, which deserves the energetic attention enjoyed by other aspects of HIV treatment and care. In particular, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is shining a long-overdue spotlight on the human rights imperatives associated with disability. For South Africa and other countries, proactively and meaningfully engaging rehabilitation in the HIV response will require major shifts on several fronts, including practice, education, policy and research. We argue that in settings where ART delivery is now widespread, HIV should be understood not only as a medical issue, but as a rehabilitation and disability concern. Whereas medicine adds years to life, it is rehabilitation that aims to add life to years.
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 | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".