African Housing Organisations Respond to The Hiv and Aids Crisis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HIV and AIDS is an urgent housing and human settlements issue, especially among women and children living in poverty and suffering from poor housing conditions in urban slums in the South. The link between poverty and HIV prevalence is well established, and the fact that inadequate shelter increases the vulnerability of the urban poor to HIV and AIDS is increasingly recognised. Since 2003, Rooftops Canada and their partners in Kenya, Tanzania, Cameroon, Zimbabwe, South Africa, and more recently Uganda, have been working on strategies and developing programmes to respond to the AIDS crisis in these countries. Related programmes link shelter to poverty reduction through sustainable economic and social development, environmental protection, respect for human rights, democratisation and gender equality. This paper compiles the experiences of the partner housing organisations and resource groups in Sub-Saharan Africa responding to HIV and AIDS among their constituent stakeholders. The community-based responses focus on promoting social sustainability, enhancing operational capacity and improving financial sustainability. Community-based responses relate to issues of stigma and discrimination, reducing the impact of housing rights violations and responding to the specific vulnerability of children, women and youth. Social sustainability deals with the impact of HIV and AIDS on the social viability of communities. Operational capacity analyses housing groups' responses to the organ-isational impact of HIV and AIDS - including loss of staff, leadership and institutional memory, decreased productivity and capacity - and the experience of including HIV and AIDS within the core organisational mandate. Financial sustainability explores the challenges of reconciling related financial and social goals.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".