HIV diagnoses in indigenous peoples: comparison of Australia, Canada and New Zealand
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In industrial countries, a number of factors put indigenous peoples at increased risk of HIV infection. National surveillance data between 1999 and 2008 provided diagnoses for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (Australia), First Nations, Inuit and Métis (Canada excluding Ontario and Quebec) and Māori (New Zealand). Each country provided similar data for a non-indigenous comparison population. Direct standardisation used the 2001 Canadian Aboriginal male population for comparison of five-year diagnosis rates in 1999-2003 and 2004-2008. Using the general population as denominators, we report diagnosis ratios for presumed heterosexual transmission, men who have sex with men (MSM) and intravenous drug users (IDU). Age standardised HIV diagnosis rates in indigenous peoples in Canada in 2004-2008 (178.1 and 178.4/100 000 for men and women respectively) were higher than in Australia (48.5 and 12.9/100 000) and New Zealand (41.9 and 4.3/100 000). Higher HIV diagnosis rates related to heterosexual contact among Aboriginal peoples, especially women, in Canada confirm a widening epidemic beyond the conventional risk groups. This potential of a generalised epidemic requires urgent attention in Aboriginal communities; available evidence can inform policy and action by all stakeholders. Although less striking in Australia and New Zealand, these findings may be relevant to indigenous peoples in other countries.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it