MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128727789 · doi:10.1186/1742-4690-6-109

Two standards of care for HIV: Why are Africans being short-changed?

2009· editorial· en· W2128727789 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Wainberg

Bibliographic record

VenueRetrovirology · 2009
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)MedicineDeveloping countryDeveloped countryFamily medicineEconomic growthEnvironmental healthEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This editorial addresses the differences in the care of HIV in African countries compared to developed countries. It states that the enormous gaps between the standards of care diagnostic services and qualities of drugs employed continue to distinguish developing from developed countries due to access cost and stigmatization.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.043
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.043
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.008
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0190.031
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.343 · 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
GenreEditorial

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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRetrovirologySame topicHIV/AIDS Research and InterventionsFrench-language works237,207