An open debate about the object and purpose of global health knowledge in the context of an interdisciplinary research partnership on HIV/STI prevention priorities in Peru
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the failure of the latest vaccine trial, HVTN-505, HIV prevention efforts remain critical. Social and structural factors contributing to HIV and STI transmission include stigma regarding sexual violence, HIV infection and sexual orientation. For instance, HIV prevention and overall sexual health programs in Peru have been implemented yet key populations of youth (sex workers, male and transgender youth) continue to be overrepresented in new cases of HIV and STI. This suggests that interventions must take new directions and highlights the need for additional research. DISCUSSION: While interdisciplinary, international research collaborations often are indicated as best practice in developing new knowledge in global health and an important component of the leadership in health systems, this does not mean they are free of challenges. In this debate we document our reflections on some of the challenges in developing an interdisciplinary and international research team to understand HIV and STI prevention priorities among youth in two culturally diverse cities in Peru: Lima, the capital city, and Ayacucho, in the Andean region. SUMMARY: Rather than offering solutions we aim to contribute to the debate about the object and purpose of global health research in the context of developing international research partnerships that genuinely promote a reciprocal and bidirectional flow of knowledge between the Global South and the Global North, and researchers at intersections of these locations.
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 | 0.129 | 0.104 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.058 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".