Combatting malaria disease among gold miners: a qualitative research within the Malakit project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Malaria is endemic in French Guiana, in particular, where illegal gold mining activities take place. Gold miners travel from Brazil to remote camps in the Guiana forest to carry out mining activities, exposing themselves to the presumed contamination area. This article presents the results of a qualitative case study of the Malakit project, an intervention where health facilitators offer appropriate training and distribution of self-diagnosis and self-treatment kits to manage an episode of malaria at resting sites on the French Guiana borders. The objectives were: (i) Determine the contextual elements influencing the use of Malakit; (ii) Understand the way gold miners perceive Malakit; (iii) Identify the elements that are favorable and unfavorable to the use of Malakit; (iv4) Identify what can be improved in the project. The data were collected using three methods: on-site observation, semi-structured individual interviews (n = 26), and group interviews (n = 2). The results indicate that Malakit responds to the need for treatment and facilitates access to care. Gold miners say they trust the facilitators and receive accurate explanations, the kit is easy to use and carry, and explanations given are sufficient. Nonetheless, the results lead us to believe that contextual elements influence exposure to numerous risk factors and that malaria among gold miners working illegally in French Guiana is a question of social inequalities in health. Thus, malaria intervention practices such as Malakit cannot be carried out without considering the complexity generated by social inequalities in health.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".