MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2418395369

Red Cross and federal government held liable for hemophiliacs' HIV infection.

2000· article· en· W2418395369 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Richard Elliott

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlaintiffGovernment (linguistics)Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)LawPolitical scienceSummary judgmentMedicineFamily medicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After eight years of litigation, on 21 June 2000 three hemophiliacs infected with HIV finally won a judgment against the Canadian Red Cross Society and the federal government. An Ontario trial court ruled the Red Cross and the government were negligent for having delayed the implementation of heat treatment for blood products, which resulted in the plaintiffs' infections. Since starting their lawsuits in 1992, two of the three plaintiffs died of AIDS before the trial judgment. But the damage awards were criticized by the plaintiffs' lawyer.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.436
Threshold uncertainty score0.868

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0090.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.003

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
GenreOther

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
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk→French-language works237,207→