Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perhaps no single issue has come to define the political activism of the global HIV/AIDS pandemic more than the issue of the glaring global inequality in access to life-saving treatment. As Laurie Garrett put it, ‘HIV was, by the close of 1999, a lightning rod for protest against pharmaceutical companies, trade related intellectual property rights (TRIPS), and global inequalities in public health’.1 The establishment of the WTO and its expansion of international trade law into the sphere of pharmaceutical research and development as codified in TRIPS has prompted international outrage, and intense public debate and protest. A global movement has evolved to secure access to AIDS drugs, led by MSF, Oxfam, Consumer Project on Technology (CPT), Treatment Action Group (TAG), Health Global Access Project (GAP), and Health Action International. At the same time, national coalitions have emerged in SSA, such as South Africa’s Treatment Action campaign (TAC), the Kenya Coalition for Access to Essential Medicines, and the Uganda Coalition for Access to Essential Medicines. The movement has exposed the failure of current international trade law and the global market system for getting treatment to those who need it most; but pressure has also been directed towards governments for not providing life-saving drugs, particularly in the face of the recent price breaks negotiated between various countries and pharmaceutical suppliers. Access to HIV treatment has emerged as the ‘vanguard struggle’ to the extent that political mobilization of the global HIV/AIDS movement has focused first and foremost on the right to treatment.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.019 |
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".