Public health responses for the management of COVID-19 in detention centers. Literature review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMEN Objetivo Identificar en la literatura las recomendaciones para la prevencion y control de la COVID-19 en prisiones y centros de detencion preventiva, con el fin de caracterizar las lineas de respuesta Materiales y Metodos Se identificaron 88 publicaciones en bases datos y repositorios digitales usando terminos clave Luego de aplicar la metodologia PRISMA, se seleccionaron 18 publicaciones para realizar el analisis cualitativo Las publicaciones elegidas refieren a recomendaciones de academicos, investigadores y expertos Para ilustrar el enfoque de la respuesta gubernamental, se analizan seis publicaciones emitidas por autoridades gubernamentales de Canada, Belgica, Francia y Estados Unidos Se excluyeron publicaciones relacionadas con centros de detencion para menores o pacientes psiquiatricos Resultados Si bien hay poca literatura, se logro caracterizar las recomendaciones disponibles, agrupandolas en seis lineas de respuesta En su caracterizacion resulta primordial el establecimiento de medidas fisicas, administrativas, juridicas, higienicas y de salubridad Asimismo, se plantea la necesidad de garantizar el manejo epidemiologico y la adecuacion de los servicios de salud en concordancia con la carga de enfermedad y las vulnerabilidades de los detenidos Conclusiones La respuesta a la COVID-19 en centros de reclusion es compleja y desafiante Por ende, las medidas convencionales del orden higienico, sanitario, medico y epidemiologico no son suficientes Estas deben ir acompanadas por un ajuste de las politicas criminal y penitenciaria, con el fin de reducir y controlar la densidad poblacional, ademas de la adaptacion permanente de la administracion de justicia en funcion de las medidas de contencion, mitigacion o supresion de la pandemia (AU) ABSTRACT Objective To identify in the literature the recommendations for the prevention and control of COVID-19 in prisons and other preventive detention centers, in order to characterize the response lines Materials and Methods 88 publications were identified in databases and digital repositories using key terms After applying the PRISMA methodology, 18 publications were selected to carry out the qualitative analysis The chosen publications refer to recommendations from academics, researchers and experts 6 publications issued by the Governments of Canada, Belgium, France and United States of America were analyzed to make clear the government perspectives Publications related to underage and psychiatric patients were not considered Results Although there isn't enough literature, it was possible to characterize the available recommendations, grouping them into 6 lines of action Within these lines, the establishment of physical, administrative, legal, hygienic and health measures is considered essential In addition, it is necessary to ensure the epidemiological management and adaptation of health services based on the burden of disease and susceptibility of the persons under arrest Conclusions The response to COVID-19 in detention centers is complex and challenging Therefore, the conventional steps like hygienic, sanitary, medical and epidemiological care aren't enough In fact, the adjustment of criminal and penitentiary policies and the transformation of the justice system are considered essential to reduce and control the residential density (AU)
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it