HIV control strategies for sex worker–client contact networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Controlling the spread of HIV among hidden, high-risk populations such as survival sex workers and their clients is becoming increasingly important in the ongoing fight against HIV/AIDS. Several sociological and structural factors render general control strategies ineffective in these settings; instead, focused prevention, testing and treatment strategies which take into account the nature of survival sex work are required. Using a dynamic bipartite network model of sexual contacts, we investigate the optimal distribution of treatment and preventative resources among sex workers and their clients; specifically, we consider control strategies that randomly allocate antiretroviral therapy and pre-exposure prophylaxis within each subpopulation separately. Motivated by historical data from a South African mining community, three main asymmetries between sex workers and clients are considered in our model: relative population sizes, migration rates and partner distributions. We find that preventative interventions targeted at female sex workers are the lowest cost strategies for reducing HIV prevalence, since the sex workers form a smaller population and have, on average, more sexual contacts. However, the high migration rate among survival sex workers limits the extent to which prevalence can be reduced using this strategy. To achieve a further reduction in HIV prevalence, testing and treatment in the client population cannot be ignored.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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 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".