MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2398349559

Pulse : AIDS in Canada: the 20th anniversary approaches

2001· article· en· W2398349559 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Shelley Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Association Journal · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)DemographyPopulationDisease controlPediatricsGerontologyFamily medicineEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the 20th anniversary of the reporting of Canada's first AIDS case approaches, Health Canada data indicate that 48 014 positive HIV tests have been reported to Canada's Centre for Infectious Disease Prevention and Control. The number of positive tests reported peaked at 2983 in 1995 and declined to 2104 in 2000. Adult women account for 13.8% of all positive tests and for 24% of positive HIV tests reported among the adult population. As was the case in all previous years, the 30–39 age group accounted for the largest proportion of positive HIV tests in 2000 (41.1%). Since the early 1980s, 17 594 cases of AIDS have been reported to the centre; when adjusted for reporting delay, this figure rises to 19 153. The adjusted number of new AIDS cases peaked at 1859 in 1993 and then declined steadily to 584 in 1999; it is estimated to have rebounded slightly to 644 cases in 2000. Last year, 10.1% of those diagnosed with AIDS were adult women, and 1.2% were children. Slightly more than half (50.8%) of cases diagnosed among adults in 2000 were attributable to men having sex with men, 21.7% were related to injection drug use and 1.2% were attributed to tainted blood and blood products.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.231
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0470.010

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations0
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Association Journal→Same topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk→French-language works237,207→