The Gathering Storm:Infectious Diseases and Human Rights in Burma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We began our research by dispatching teams of researchers to Rangoon and the border regions of China, Thailand, Bangladesh, and India.During these missions, researchers gathered data about infectious diseases-primarily HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria, and lymphatic filariasis-from health clinics operated by local governments and nongovernmental organizations.The teams also interviewed health professionals, government officials, and representatives of nongovernmental and community-based organizations that operate preventative programs and provide therapeutic care to patients.After the initial trip, researchers made repeat visits to Burma and the border regions of Thailand and India to collect further information.In addition, one of our researchers interviewed staff members of the Global Fund in Geneva and representatives of the European Union in Bangkok charged with drafting the strategic plan for the 3D Fund.All interviews were conducted in accordance with procedures established by the Office for the Protection of Human Subjects of the University of California, Berkeley and Johns Hopkins University. 15is report is premised on four precepts related to health and human rights (see "Introduction").First, successful public health infrastructures, programs, and outcomes are usually a result of good governance and a respect for human rights.Second, respect for human rights and international humanitarian law helps to ensure accountability, transparency, responsible use of health expenditures, and rapid and equitable delivery of relief in areas of armed conflict.Inversely, serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that affect the movement of large population groups can cause or exacerbate the spread of infectious diseases.This is particularly true among migrant or internally displaced populations who generally lack access to appropriate health services.Third, as the World Health Organization (WHO) affirmed in 2001, public health interventions for vulnerable groups are most effective if they also succeed in respecting, protecting, and fulfilling the rights of people marginalized by society. 16 Finally, donors and nongovernmental organizations working in the health sector, especially in countries with highly repressive regimes, have a responsibility to respect and promote the human rights of those they serve.We offer the following conclusions and recommendations: Health Care System in Burma The Government of Burma must develop a national health care system that is participatory and incorporates human rights so as to ensure that health care is distributed effectively, equitably, and transparently.Promoting participation as a feature of health system reform is now commonplace.With the rise of Primary Health Care in the 1970s, community involvement was seen as an essential ingredient of a nation's health improvement.More recently, the emphasis has shifted to stakeholder consultation in sector reform.With the rise of rights-based approaches, emphasis is increasingly being placed on the participation of service users not as "beneficiaries" or "consumers" but as citizens who have the right to have a say in shaping health care policies.Community 5 This is the figure for 2000.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 teacher head, 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".