Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to identify gaps between knowledge regarding migration and the spread of HIV/AIDS, to improve understanding of migrants with HIV/AIDS and their human rights, and to make suggestions for Korean policy makers to reform laws and policies towards granting migrants with HIV/AIDS more human rights and access to treatment and care. Methods: This study is based on an extensive literature review, questionnaire surveys and in-depth interviews from randomly selected 8 countries from 5 different continents: Japan from Asia; Australia from Oceania; Finland, Germany, Ireland and United Kingdom(UK) from Europe; and Canada and United States of America(USA) in North America. Results: This study has found that Korea has a discriminating policy regarding HIV/AIDS and foreigners. Classifying HIV/AIDS into' a legal communicable disease, it requires a presentation of HIV/AIDS test results from foreigners wanting a long-term stay before entering. In principle, foreigners with HIV / AIDS cannot either enter or stay in Korea. If they are known infected with HIV/AIDS by any reason, they became to face an immediate deportation regardless of their sojourn statuses and purposes. Conclusion: With the results, this study suggests three reasons why Korean government needs to change the current HIV I AIDS policy on foreigners: 1) HIV -related travel restrictions have no public health justification, 2) its strict HIV/AIDS policy on foreigners could result in restriction on the mobility and migration of its people by the other countries, inversely, and 3) it needs to meet international guidelines and to observe conventions that international organizations suggest to maintain its status as a member of the international society.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".