Calculating the Affordability of Antiretrovirals in St Lucia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cost of antiretrovirals is borne by donors in many low- and middle-income countries, including St Lucia. Although donor involvement has facilitated access to antiretrovirals, donor engagement in HIV/AIDS has changed over the years. This paper assesses the affordability of antiretrovirals at the individual level if donors were no longer available to fund the cost of first and second-line antiretrovirals and a prospective third-line regimen. Various conceptions of affordability are reviewed using different assumptions of what is required to maintain a standard of living that would avoid individuals descending into poverty as a result of antiretroviral purchases. These concepts of affordability are operationalized using data from the Household Budgeting Survey conducted in St Lucia in 2005/2006. While there is a range of results for the affordability of first and second-line antiretrovirals depending on which standard of affordability is used, third-line antiretrovirals are unaffordable to more than 80% of the population across the four standards of affordability used - the national poverty line, 50% of median annual consumption, 10% of annual consumption and a proposed reasonable minimum standard.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".