Programmatic Mapping: Providing Evidence for High Impact HIV Prevention Programs for Female Sex Workers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Programmatic mapping (PM) is a rapid and efficient mechanism to develop size estimates of key populations including female sex workers (FSWs) and geolocate them at physical locations in a systematic and scientific manner. At the macro level, this information forms the basis for allocating program resources, setting performance targets, and assess coverage. At a micro level, PM data provide specific information on hot spots, estimates of FSWs at those spots, and hot spot typology and days and times of operation, all of which provides targeted service delivery strategies. This information can provide a reliable platform to plan HIV prevention and treatment services to considerable scale and intensity. Above all, the entire PM process requires deep involvement of FSWs, which increases community ownership of the data and can lead to an increased uptake of services. Despite a few limitations, the approach is versatile and can be used in varied country contexts to generate important information about sex work and its dynamics. In this paper, we describe experiences and lessons learned from using evidence generated from PM of FSWs in multiple countries to develop HIV prevention programs at scale.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".