“It’s natural to look for a source”: A qualitative examination of alternative beliefs about HIV and AIDS in Cape Town, South Africa
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
This article highlights how African men and women in South Africa account for the plausibility of alternative beliefs about the origins of HIV and the existence of a cure. This study draws on the notion of a "street-level epistemology of trust"-knowledge generated by individuals through their everyday observations and experiences-to account for individuals' trust or mistrust of official claims versus alternative explanations about HIV and AIDS. Focus group respondents describe how past experiences, combined with observations about the power of scientific developments and perceptions of disjunctures in information, fuel their uncertainty and skepticism about official claims. HIV prevention campaigns may be strengthened by drawing on experiential aspects of HIV and AIDS to lend credibility to scientific claims, while recognizing that some doubts about the trustworthiness of scientific evidence are a form of skeptical engagement rather than of outright rejection.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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