Community Insights in Phylogenetic HIV Research: The CIPHR Project Protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Inferring HIV transmission networks from HIV sequences is gaining popularity in the field of HIV molecular epidemiology. However, HIV sequences are often analyzed at distance from those affected by HIV epidemics, namely without the involvement of communities most affected by HIV. These remote analyses often mean that knowledge is generated in absence of lived experiences and socio-economic realities that could inform the ethical application of network-derived information in 'real world' programmes. Procedures to engage communities are noticeably absent from the HIV molecular epidemiology literature. Here we present our team's protocol for engaging community activists living in Nairobi, Kenya in a knowledge exchange process - The CIPHR Project (Community Insights in Phylogenetic HIV Research). Drawing upon a community-based participatory approach, our team will (1) explore the possibilities and limitations of HIV molecular epidemiology for key population programmes, (2) pilot a community-based HIV molecular study, and (3) co-develop policy guidelines on conducting ethically safe HIV molecular epidemiology. Critical dialogue with activist communities will offer insight into the potential uses and abuses of using such information to sharpen HIV prevention programmes. The outcome of this process holds importance to the development of policy frameworks that will guide the next generation of the global response.
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 | 0.137 | 0.139 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.142 | 0.036 |
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".