MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113358132 · doi:10.1521/aeap.16.5.405.48734

The Sonagachi Project: A Sustainable Community Intervention Program

2004· review· en· W2113358132 on OpenAlexaff
Smarajit Jana, Ishika Basu, Mary Jane Rotheram‐Borus, Peter A. Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Education and Prevention · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSex work and related issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychological interventionEmpowermentSustainabilityProgram evaluationIntervention (counseling)GerontologyPublic healthCommunity organizationEconomic growthEnvironmental healthMedicinePsychologyPublic relationsNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High rates of HIV infection among sex workers in India indicate the importance of understanding the process of establishing a sustainable community intervention program. The Sonagachi Project, based in Calcutta, India, has been associated with lower HIV rates among sex workers as compared to other urban centers in India. The program defined HIV as an occupational health problem and included multifaceted, multilevel interventions addressing community (having a high-status advocate; addressing environmental barriers and resources), group (changing social relationships), and individual factors (improving skills and competencies related to HIV prevention and treatment). The Sonagachi Project's core concepts and strategies evolved as community needs were expressed and defined. In particular, the program was not initially conceptualized as a community empowerment project but emerged over time, allowing for project sustainability. Project components appear to be replicable across settings within India and worldwide.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.412 · 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
GenreReview

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

Citations371
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIDS Education and PreventionSame topicSex work and related issuesFrench-language works237,207