Canadian consensus statement on HIV and its transmission in the context of criminal law
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A poor appreciation of the science related to HIV contributes to an overly broad use of the criminal law against individuals living with HIV in cases of HIV nondisclosure. METHOD: To promote an evidence-informed application of the law in Canada, a team of six Canadian medical experts on HIV and transmission led the development of a consensus statement on HIV sexual transmission, HIV transmission associated with biting and spitting, and the natural history of HIV infection. The statement is based on a literature review of the most recent and relevant scientific evidence (current as of December 2013) regarding HIV and its transmission. It has been endorsed by >70 additional Canadian HIV experts and the Association of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Disease Canada. RESULTS: Scientific and medical evidence clearly indicate that HIV is difficult to transmit during sex. For the purpose of informing the justice system, the per-act possibility of HIV transmission through sex, biting or spitting is described along a continuum from low possibility, to negligible possibility, to no possibility of transmission. This possibility takes into account the impact of factors such as the type of sexual acts, condom use, antiretroviral therapy and viral load. Dramatic advances in HIV therapy have transformed HIV infection into a chronic manageable condition. DISCUSSION: HIV physicians and scientists have a professional and ethical responsibility to assist those in the criminal justice system to understand and interpret the science regarding HIV. This is critical to prevent miscarriage of justice and to remove unnecessary barriers to evidence-based HIV prevention strategies.
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 | 0.041 | 0.117 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.011 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.017 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.004 |
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".