Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines Russia’s legal response to its ongoing HIV/AIDS epidemic. Russia’s international human rights obligations are reviewed and the article then critically assesses the extent to which Russia’s current HIV/AIDS law and practice are consistent with those obligations. The paper demonstrates that most aspects of Russia’s HIV/AIDS laws are consistent with Russia’s international obligations. However, the paper also documents key parts of HIV/AIDS practice in Russia that are seriously inconsistent with both Russian HIV/AIDS law and Russia’s international human rights obligations. This inconsistency between HIV-related de jure norms and de facto practice raises the question of compliance with the rule of law in Russia. Long a political and social culture hostile to the rule of law, Russia has encountered many barriers as it attempts to develop a legal culture governed by the rule of law, its HIV/AIDS practice being only one example. To address this challenge, the article proposes a theory of compliance relating to HIV-related domestic law in Russia that can facilitate the development of a legal culture governed by the rule of law in Russia: the improvement of human rights literacy of people living with HIV and those at risk, and an increased capacity of health care professionals to understand and apply legal and human rights obligations in the delivery of care.
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 | 0.009 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".