MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4404989130 · doi:10.1017/9781316831946.011

Street-Level Health Officials

2024· book-chapter· en· W4404989130 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueCambridge University Press eBooks · 2024
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter is about the local health officials who implement China’s surveillance and behavioral outreach health policies for estimating the prevalence of HIV/AIDS and reducing its occurrence among sex workers. These policies set out clear guidelines for targeting certain types and numbers of sex workers for HIV/AIDS testing and outreach, with the goal of obtaining accurate knowledge of the overall sex worker population and reaching out to the individuals who present the greatest concerns to public health. These policies are also designed to protect the individual rights of sex workers, a prerequisite for obtaining higher quality data and increasing the likelihood that public health interventions will yield safer sexual behaviors. Yet frontline health workers often deviate from these rules, as obstacles within China’s health bureaucracy complicate proper policy implementation. Local health officials must also contend with two powerful entities that are predisposed to oppose their work: the sex industry and the police. Taken together, these challenges lead health agents to focus their testing and outreach efforts on hostesses instead of low-tier sex workers – even though women in the low tier are most in need of health interventions – and result in other irregularities in policy implementation with grave public health consequences.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score0.733

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2190.106

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCambridge University Press eBooks→Same topicHIV, Drug Use, Sexual Risk→French-language works237,207→