MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4382363111 · doi:10.1111/1468-0009.12663

Advancing Dialogue About Consent and Molecular HIV Surveillance in the United States: Four Proposals Following a Federal Advisory Panel's Call for Major Reforms

2023· article· en· W4382363111 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen Molldrem, Anthony K J Smith, Alexander McClelland

Bibliographic record

VenueMilbank Quarterly · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEthics in Clinical Research
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)Advisory committeePolitical sciencePublic administrationPresidential systemPillarFamily medicinePublic relationsMedicineLawPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Policy Points Molecular HIV surveillance and cluster detection and response (MHS/CDR) programs have been a core public health activity in the United States since 2018 and are the "fourth pillar" of the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative launched in 2019. MHS/CDR has caused controversy, including calls for a moratorium from networks of people living with HIV. In October 2022, the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) adopted a resolution calling for major reforms. We analyze the policy landscape and present four proposals to federal stakeholders pertaining to PACHA's recommendations about incorporating opt-outs and plain-language notifications into MHS/CDR programs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.642

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.439
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMilbank QuarterlySame topicEthics in Clinical ResearchFrench-language works237,207