MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4250159900 · doi:10.18192/aporia.v5i1.3444

Éditorial / Editorial

2013· article· fr· W4250159900 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
PATRICK O'BYRNE

Bibliographic record

VenueAporia · 2013
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research indicates that the medications used to treat an HIV infection can also be used to prevent a person who has been exposed to HIV from seroconverting, i.e., from becoming HIVpositive.Because it takes 48 to 72 hours before HIV is detectable in a person's regional lymph nodes, the immediate period after HIV exposure constitutes an important window when these medications can be used for HIV post-exposure prophylaxis (henceforth referred to as HIV PEP).While the evidence about this prevention strategy is far from perfect, research involving occupational exposures to HIV (e.g., needle-stick injuries), animal model studies for sexual exposure to HIV, and case reports indicate that HIV PEP induces an 80% reduction in HIV seroconversion after exposure to HIV.Accordingly, international recommendations suggest the use of HIV PEP in all cases of exposure to HIV, whether the exposure occurred through sexual contact or otherwise.Guidelines to structure this intervention exist in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Austalia.In Canada, however, no such guidelines for HIV PEP exist.Of even greater concern in the Canadian context is that HIV PEP is expensive, totalling approximately $1650CAD for the required 28-days of treatment.For individuals with private medical insurance that partially or completely covers pharmaceuticals, such costs are diminished.For example, a private insurance plan that covers 90% of medication costs still leaves a person paying $165CAD out-of-pocket.While this new figure is greatly improved, it may still constitute a significant enough barrier to prevent some persons who require HIV PEP from accessing a prevention strategy that will reduce their subsequent potential for HIV seroconversion.To alleviate such financial barriers to HIV PEP, in some jurisdictions, these medications are publicly funded; e.g., after occupational exposures.Another situation where HIV PEP is often dispensed without charge is sexual assault.In these situations, the person who was sexually assaulted is typically offered and provided with HIV PEP medications at no cost to them.However, unless it relates to a sexual assault, opportunities to obtain publicly funded HIV PEP are not afforded to gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men, notwithstanding the fact that, in Canada, nearly 50% of all new and previous HIV diagnoses involve a man who has sex with men.This situation constitutes not only an outright mismanagement of an effective HIV prevention strategy, but also it constitutes a blatant disregard for the health and wellbeing Éditorial/

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.037
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.225

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.037
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0110.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0670.045

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAporia→Same topicArtistic and Creative Research→French-language works237,207→