Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 1, No. 2, July 2008, all in one file
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The medical sophistication of modern day has been rendered helpless in the face of HIV/AIDS. The incurable nature of the HIV/AIDS virus which changes its morphology is putting a huge strain on the various fronts of humanity. The economic and social devastation of the HIV/AIDS menace has meant that no progressive force on earth will not give this epidemic some attention. Zimbabwe is a developing country in Southern Africa which has been grappling with the menace whose spread has been largely due to ignorance and wanton denial of the devastating effects over the years. Multitudes of promotional programmes to change behaviour have met with mixed success. To this day 3 000 people die weekly with calamitous effects to the nation. There has been a reduction in the numbers affected and part of the argument is that promotions for preventive behaviour is bearing fruit. This study seeks to evaluate successes and failures of various programmes in the fight against HIV/AIDS with particular emphasis on whether marketing communications to promote good behaviour has had any significant impact. It can be argued that this process does not render itself to marketing communications. On the contrary it does. The experts in the area of marketing point out that goods, services ideas, places or persons can represent a product. In this regard the product is the idea of behavioural change. The direct benefit from the idea is to serve the human race from extinction. This paper will argue that it can be done, it can bear fruit, but it is a mammoth task and calls for collective and individual responsibility across the private, public, religious groupings, the donor community etc. It is the contention of this paper that the idea of changing behaviour in the fight against HIV/AIDS has to be sold to society and this paper argues that marketing communications can make a huge difference in serving millions of human lives. Ultimately the perception people have of HIV/AIDS will determine how they position it it vis--vis life.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".