MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2150213373 · doi:10.1080/09540120600581460

Growing up: Perspectives of children, families and service providers regarding the needs of older children with perinatally-acquired HIV

2006· article· en· W2150213373 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah J. Fielden, Lori Sheckter, Gwenneth E. Chapman, Ariane Alimenti, John C. Forbes, Sam Sheps, Susan Cadell, Jim Frankish

Bibliographic record

VenueAIDS Care · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsService providerHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)PsychologyService (business)MedicineDevelopmental psychologyPediatricsFamily medicineBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children with perinatally-acquired HIV are living into adolescence and adulthood. As this is a relatively new phenomenon, there is a paucity of research highlighting the complex issues that arise for these children. This qualitative case-study examines the needs of a select group of older children (9-16 years old) with perinatally-acquired HIV in the province of British Columbia, Canada through focus groups and interviews conducted with ten HIV-infected children, 11 family members and 11 service providers. The needs of this population are diverse, reflecting its heterogeneity. However, participants consistently highlighted issues of stigma, sexual health and mental health as major areas of current and future concern. Continued support, education and future planning in these areas are necessary for older HIV-infected children as they transition out of childhood.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations79
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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