Invigorating the Public Body : A Case Study of HIV/AIDS Activist Confrontations Against Big Pharma for Access to Medicines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using 'illness as metaphor," critical communications theory, citizenship studies and critical political economy, this thesis presents a case study of the confrontation between "Big Pharma" and HIV/AIDS activists concerning access to HIV/AIDS medicines; a confrontation that spilled over into the World Trade Organization (WTO) causing worldwide public outrage. The timeline starts in the 1980s, but focuses on confrontations between these actors during the 1990s and early 2000s. By making HIV/AIDS 'public and 'political', activists: battled stigmatization; revealed the politics of medicine; made Big Pharma more socially responsible; influence the WTO's and global health agenda; and stirred dissent against a neoliberal globalization, exposing power relations between the global rich and global poor. This is about antiBody (HIV/AIDS activists) targeting a dangerous site of infection (Big Pharma) and combating the spread of two illnesses (HIV/AIDS and neoliberalism which invigorated the 'public body' in terms of public health and debate.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.053 | 0.025 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".